Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

FORWARD TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday 30th April at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to put down a motion such as he has tabled on Second Reading—
That the Bill be read a second time on this day six months"—
when he has said that he is not necessarily against the principle of the Bill and when all the petitions can be taken into account in Committee? This merely imposes delay and expense on the local authority.

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to raise that point of order at the end of Questions? I have notice of a similar point of order and I will deal with it at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the progress and costs of the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement during the defence debate on 15th March.—[Vol. 852, c. 1510–11.]

Mr. Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the difference in exchange rates? Will he say what effect these alterations will have on the ultimate cost of the aircraft and, perhaps more important, whether they will have any effect on the balance between the manufacturing capacities of the various countries and the numbers taken up?

Mr. Gilmour: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend any more than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force told the House last Thursday. This is an extremely complicated matter which will take a great deal of working out. It will not be clear until the next review point at the end of the year.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has the aircraft passed the scrutiny of the NATO MRCA Management Committee and, if so, has any decision been taken about production investment?

Mr. Gilmour: It has met the requirements of all the Chiefs of Staff of the countries participating, and the decisions on production investment will be taken at the next review stage.

Polaris Submarine Bases

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence what representations he has received about United States and British Polaris submarine bases in Scotland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have received no recent representations on this subject.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that at Easter the Scottish TUC, the Labour


Party and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will be publicly seeking the winding-up of these bases? In view of the development of the long-distance Trident, have the American Government been asked whether they still need to retain the bases in Scotland?

Mr. Gilmour: I am aware that there will be some contrived agitation this weekend. I am also aware that it will not represent the view of the public either in Scotland or elsewhere. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, we have made it clear to the Americans that we will make the bases available to them for as long as they require them.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend accept that among the vast majority of people in Scotland there is appreciative understanding of the vital rôle of these bases, and that their presence is welcome not only for strategic purposes but also because of the considerable contribution they make to local employment and the local economy?

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. He is quite right. There are 3,500 Royal Navy officers and men stationed at Faslane who greatly add to the purchasing power of the district, and there are 2,700 civilians employed at Faslane and Coulport which greatly helps the employment situation.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Army is continuing to support the civil authorities in Northern Ireland in the maintenance of law and order. By undertaking patrols and conducting selective searches it is continuing to combat violence, from whatever quarter it may arise, and to protect the lives and property of the community.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister recall the much more hopeful picture of operations and accommodation in Northern Ireland that I was anxious to project in the recent Army debate? Is he aware of the disturbing Press reports about the current operations of the paratroops and will he ensure that no operations are undertaken which might jeopardise the success of the White Paper? Has any change been made in the instructions governing the use of the yellow card, and were representations made about Colonel Lorimer before his transfer to England?

Mr. Gilmour: I always think it right not to be over-optimistic in outlining the current operations of the Army in Northern Ireland. I have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong in what the paratroops have done. The terms of the yellow card are kept under continual review. They have not been changed lately and I see no reason to change them. As far as I know, no representations were made about Colonel Lorimer.

Mr. Goodhart: If the Army continues throughout the summer to enjoy its recent success, does my hon. Friend foresee a reduction in the number of units serving in Northern Ireland perhaps by Christmas? Meanwhile, has my hon. Friend noticed an increase in the propaganda campaign which is normally directed against units which are particularly successful in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, we keep the level of our forces in Northern Ireland under continual review. If the level of violence continues to decrease we shall, of course, bring more troops home. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been a considerable number of general charges of brutality, and these are usually directed against successful troops. Specific allegations which are backed by evidence we investigate carefully, but general charges are entirely repudiated.

Mr. Fitt: In view of the mounting toll of deaths which have been brought about in the past fortnight by the British Army, about which it has expressed regret and said that mistakes have been made, and in view of the harassment that is now taking place in the city of Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman say whether any different policy is being pursued by the Army? Is


he aware that if the Army continues with the present attitude in Northern Ireland, the whole of the White Paper proposals will be in serious danger of defeat?

Mr. Gilmour: I strongly deprecate the expression used by the hon. Gentleman about the mounting toll of deaths brought about by the British Army. The mounting toll of death has been brought about by incidents of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the Army makes a mistake and there is an accident the Army greatly regrets it—and, indeed, the Army has expressed its regret, as I express my regret. That is undoubted. But the whole House will agree that, faced with the terrorist situation which the Army has faced in the last two years, we have been extremely relieved and grateful that accidents so seldom happen.

Mr. Srratton Mills: There appears to be a very much larger range of activity by the military police in conjunction with the RUC. In welcoming that, may I ask whether my hon. Friend has any plans to extend this type of force, which has been outstandingly successful?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the force has been successful, and when opportunities arise we shall seek to extend it.

Mr. Peart: May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we defend the Army's position in Northern Ireland? We believe that our troops have performed a magnificent task and we give them our wholehearted support.

Mr. Gilmour: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Ardoyne area of Belfast.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): There have been a number of serious outbreaks of violence in the Ardoyne area, but recent weeks have seen a considerable improvement. The situation is still not satisfactory, and the Army will continue to take all practicable steps to protect the community.

Mr. Mills: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware, however, of the extent to which people are suffering in

this area due to extensive terrorist activity? Such activity particularly affects elderly people. Will my hon. Friend give an assessment of the success that there has been in the last few months against the IRA in this area? In particular, will he give an assurance that the Ardoyne area will continue to be given top priority by the security forces?

Mr. Blaker: As my hon. Friend knows, the detailed deployment of troops on the ground is a matter for the local commanders. While the situation remains as it has been in recent months, I am sure that the local commanders will give the Ardoyne very high priority.
I can produce figures—and I will send them to my hon. Friend—which show that there has been a dramatic fall particularly in the last two weeks in the number of incidents compared with the first three months of this year.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman, in his discussions with his Department and with the local commanders concerned in the Ardoyne, point out to them that a White Paper has been passed which, it is hoped, will bring a new climate and a new approach to problems in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that it is very necessary that those who may in the past have been hostile to the Government and to the Government's intentions should be able to see on the ground the change which is reflected in the White Paper? Will the Minister accept that the harassment of Republican clubs, which seems to have gone on apace and which has increased since the Republican clubs have been withdrawn from the proscribed list, is something which must be considered carefully if we are to have the peace which is wanted in the Ardoyne area in future?

Mr. Blaker: I very much welcome the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept that there is deliberate harassment by the security forces. The hon. Gentleman knows that if there are complaints they are carefully investigated Machinery exists, which is well known, for that purpose.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a small housing estate on the left-hand side going up past the Ardoyne fire station and that the people living in that estate have been


subjected to terrible harassment? Is he aware that they have been attacked as they have gone in and out of the estate? Will he give an assurance to the House that the security of these people—they have already made representations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland —will be carefully considered and that everything will be done to give them personal safety?

Mr. Blaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to alleged harassment by the Army?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No.

Mr. Blaker: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of that area will be borne in mind by the local commander, in the way in which he normally pays attention to areas which are in special need.

Mr. McManus: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept, even for once, that most of the trouble and much of the loss of life in the Ardoyne area is due to the excesses of the Parachute Regiment in particular? Will he now issue instructions that the paratroops be withdrawn from the area?

Mr. Blaker: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What is more, the facts do not support what he has said. In the first three months of this year there was an improvement in many other areas but there was regular trouble in the Ardoyne. The position in the last few weeks, since the Parachute Regiment has been there, is that the trouble in the Ardoyne has diminished.

Low Flying Aircraft (Bredon Hill)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is aware that low-flying aircraft, presumed to be on military operations, showered pellets, of which samples have been sent to him, on Bredon Hill, and in particular on domestic premises occupied by constituents of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and that one of the aircraft was identified by the fuselage markings; what steps he is taking to prevent this nuisance and noise in the area of Bredon Hill; and what instructions he has caused to be given to the pilots.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the aircraft with the registration G-AXBD about which he has written to me. This is a civil aircraft employed in agricultural aviation and is in no way the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Its activities are therefore a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who I am sure will ensure in future that no pellets will be directed at my hon. Friend's constituents or himself.

Sir G. Nabarro: I fully exonerate the Ministry of Defence on this rare occasion for not showering missiles of one kind or another on my constituents. Would not my hon. Friend recognise that these pellets, as they are called—large granules—are excessively poisonous, should not be used and should be proscribed? Will he use his influence to prevent further missiles being distributed and to persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to forbear on future occasions?

Lord Lambton: I suggest that my hon. Friend uses his own influence on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Maritime VSTOL Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the employment of VSTOL aircraft by the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The project definition study of a maritime VSTOL aircraft for the Royal Navy is expected to be completed at the end of April. We expect to announce our decision on the project before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess.
Meanwhile I am glad to be able to announce that the order for the first through-deck cruiser has now been placed with Messrs. Vickers, Barrow. The ship is to be named HMS "Invincible".

Mr. Wall: I welcome the fact that at long last that we are to have an announcement in the House on the future of the vertical take-off aircraft in the Navy. Will my hon. Friend say when the statement will be made about which Service is to operate the aircraft?

Mr. Gilmour: I think my Friend slightly misunderstood my answer. I did not say that a decision had been taken on VSTOL aircraft but that a decision had been made about the building of the cruiser. As no decision on VSTOL has yet been announced, it would be premature to say which Service, if any, would fly the aircraft.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister agree that future policy on through-deck cruisers is intimately related to the future of the vertical take-off aircraft and its use in the Navy? How soon will he clarify overall policy? If the Government decide to go ahead with vertical take-off aircraft, one through-deck cruiser will not make much sense.

Mr. Gilmour: Although the two things are connected, they are also at the same time fairly separate because the through-deck cruiser has other functions of command and control and in relation to the Sea King helicopter. Therefore, we would have proceeded with the through-deck cruiser—and indeed, we are proceeding with it—irrespective of whether we buy VSTOL aircraft.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I warmly welcome the ordering of HMS "Invincible" and I congratulate the Government on their efforts. Will my hon. Friend recognise that the two things are slightly connected and that during the Royal Air Force debate the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, in the course of a wise and sensible passage in his speech about defence of trade overseas, said that the trade would be looked after? Does not this mean the use of seaborne aircraft in some shape or form?

Mr. Gilmour: They are connected in the sense that if the Navy has VSTOL aircraft they will fly from the cruiser. I am also saying that we shall have the cruiser in any event.

Dr. David Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the unit cost of the cruisers, less aeroplanes or helicopters, is likely to be £70 million-plus? How many ships are likely to be purchased, and can this cost be maintained within the Ministry of Defence's long-term costings?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in the Ministry of Defence that Her Majesty's Government are not accustomed to revealing the cost of any defence projects or to announcing in advance how many ships of a particular class will be built.

European Nuclear Force

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy towards the formation of a possible nuclear force in which all EEC member nations would participate.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: A European nuclear force remains a long-term possibility but there are no plans for pursuing this issue at present.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply that this project remains a long-term possibility will intensify the anxiety now being felt throughout Britain and Europe on the idea that ultimately a nuclear force may be formed with Community nations equally participating, and that ultimately the NATO force will be replaced by this new European concept? Is he further aware that the British Labour Party is overwhelmingly opposed to the idea that such a nuclear force should be established? Will he reconsider his answer?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not agree that there is overwhelming anxiety either in this country or in Europe on this matter. If the long-term possibility—and I stress long-term possibility "—of a European force ever came to pass, it would be part of NATO.

Mr. Marten: Before we become involved in a Euro force, can my hon. Friend the Minister say whether there has been progress in the possible re-equipping of our nuclear force with Poseidon?

Mr. Gilmour: No, Sir; I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has raised an important matter of European policy. Has there been a commitment of any kind to the concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Gilmour: No, Sir. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of


State for Defence has said many times, the discussions which we have had with the French Government have been only to the extent that we have both agreed that the problem of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is one for the future.

Civilian Employees (Pay)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the action he is taking following the introduction of phase 2 to improve the remuneration of lower paid civilian personnel in Ministry of Defence establishments, and on the action he is taking to remove the anomalies in the rates of pay to such civilian personnel.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Rates of pay of civilians employed in Ministry of Defence establishments are common to the Civil Service as a whole. Increases within the limits applying during the present stage of counter-inflation policy are a matter for discussion by the appropriate negotiating bodies.

Mr. Judd: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that he does everything possible to guarantee that there is absolutely no delay in implementing any increase that is due following the annual review? Is he aware that there are still far too many civilians in these establishments on deplorably low rates of pay? What action will be taken to improve their predicament? Finally, will the hon. Gentleman take action with the Civil Service Department to remove anomalies whereby too many people who are doing exactly the same work are on completely different rates of pay?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the there is no delay. The question of low pay generally is a matter for discussion between Government Departments and the trade unions. As for anomalies, there are bound to be discrepancies in an organisation as large as the Ministry of Defence. We shall do our best to remove them as much as we can.

Warship Construction

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what criteria he uses when placing orders for the construction of British warships in British shipyards.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: British warship orders are generally placed on the basis of the most advantageous tender, taking all relevant factors fully into account.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that efficient firms outside the development areas—for example, Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton—will not be penalised when his Department places orders?

Mr. Gilmour: I give that assurance gladly. We have the highest regard for Vosper's. I think that the only time when the company felt that it was hard dealt with was over the accelerated shipbuilding order of 1971 which was designed specifically to help unemployment in depressed areas, which, luckily, Southampton is not.

Mr. Fernyhough: Since the hon. Gentleman says that he always accepts the lowest tenders, can he say how many tenders there were for the £70 million project to which he referred in answer to an earlier Question?

Mr. Gilmour: I did not say that we always accepted the lowest tender. I said that we accepted the most advantageous tender. We do not necessarily believe that a cut-price tender is the best. We take a number of factors into account. As for the cruiser—I did not mention the figure of £70 million—there was only one tender. We placed the shipbuilding involved in that with Vickers.

Dutch Agricultural Exhibition (Vehicle Servicing)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of State for Defence why servicing facilities for lorries of a Dutch agricultural products marketing touring exhibition were provided by the Royal Air Force at High Wycombe; and whether similar facilities are available to the Milk Marketing Board and the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation.

Lord Lambton: I have found no evidence that servicing facilities were provided by the Royal Air Force at High Wycombe for the lorries referred to. I think I should explain to the House that this Question arose from a reporting error in the Shropshire Star. This referred to "RAF'' mechanics. It should have referred to "DAF" mechanics. DAF


is a Dutch motor company The error was corrected in a later edition. It is hardly surprising that Dutch lorries should be helped by a Dutch motor company.

Greece (Official Visit)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will instruct the Chief of the Defence Staff to cancel his proposed official visit to Greece.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir. It is the normal practice for Chiefs of Staff of NATO countries to exchange visits.

Mr. Woodhouse: Recognising that I might just as well have withdrawn the Question for all the good that it would do, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind for future occasions that from the point of view of the Greek Government visits of this kind have nothing to do with the North Atlantic Alliance? They are desired and exploited by the Greek Government solely to convey the impression that that Government enjoy the blessing and support of Western Governments. May I at least have from my hon. Friend an assurance that that impression is mistaken?

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend's Question was wasted only in the sense that the visit has already taken place. It is not for me to say how the Greek Government view visits from our Chief of Defence Staff or from others. The Greek Chief of Staff was in London in 1971 as the guest of our Chief of Defence Staff and normal courtesy would involve an invitation to pay a return call, which he did. Obviously it is our general policy in NATO, as it is of other members, for military chiefs to exchange visits.

Mr. John Morris: Is there not a real danger of the military chiefs in Greece using this occasion to bolster their own prestige and ensuring that this is regarded as a measure of approval from the British Government of activities in Greece? Did the Secretary of State himself approve this visit?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course the Secretary of State approved the visit. But it is not for me to say how the Greek Government would view a visit. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Greek Minister for Industry came here on an official visit in 1969 at the invitation of the Labour Government.

Mr. Soref: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cause for rejoicing that we have an ally as determined to contain Communism as Greece is? Does he agree further that instead of attacking those countries which are our allies and which seek to contain Communism—like Portugal, Greece and South Africa—it would be more fitting if there were cancellations of visits to Soviet Russia and other Eastern European countries?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend implies, Greece occupies a position of great strategic importance on the southern flank of the Western Alliance. We have normal trade, defence and other relations with a number of Governments whose internal policies we do not necessarily endorse.

Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the principles for which NATO stands require no encouragement from any form of Fascist Government? Since the colonels in Greece have broken their word time and time again by trampling on the principles of freedom and democracy, will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to any future visits which are planned?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not believe that the strategy of indiscriminate denunciation does any good to NATO or to our other alliances. To call in question or undermine Greece's position in NATO will not help Greece but it may undermine the position of other countries.

Polaris Base, Scotland

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Polaris base in Scotland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I visited the Clyde submarine base in September 1971. I have at present no plans to make a further visit.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these bases provide little security but are always capable of provoking a nuclear attack on this country? Does he not agree, further, that the cost of improving or replacing our Polaris submarines is prohibitive? Would not the money be better spent on providing employment for our people and decent homes for them to live in?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not believe that the presence of the bases in Scotland constitutes any danger to Scotland. I believe that our nuclear deterrent is a deterrent designed to prevent war. I also believe that the presence of these bases in Scotland is extremely popular.

Royal Naval Reserve

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future equipment and rôle of the Royal Naval Reserve.

The Under-Secsretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): The Royal Naval Reserve is an indispensable part of the Navy. As stated in the Defence White Paper, it provides crews for 11 minesweepers and supports maritime and other headquarters in communications, naval control of shipping and other tasks. In addition the Royal Naval Reserve provides a nucleus of naval expertise within the ships of the Merchant Navy and fishing fleets. No change in these rôles is envisaged. The coastal minesweepers are planned to remain in service into the 1980s.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I suggest that the continuance of the minesweeping rôle as opposed to a transfer to the mine-hunting rôle for the RNR is somewhat to be regretted? Will my hon. Friend consider the adoption of another rôle for the RNR with fast patrol boats, missile-equipped, which would do much to increase the morale of the force and would also augment our coastal forces, which at present are very inadequate?

Mr. Buck: I shall consider the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As for the second part, at this stage I cannot hold out any hope, in view of the decision by an earlier administration, about the sort of craft of which my hon. Friend speaks.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the Reserve there is anxiety about reports that the Government may be considering the use of helicopters in future mine-clearing operations? Is he able to clarify thinking on this issue?

Mr. Buck: That is a rather different issue. I have not in my encounters with the Reserve found there to be any low morale. Recruiting is not bad. The

Reserve is only 5 per cent. below strength. If there are anxieties about the rôle of helicopters, I have not heard of them. I will look into the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know where his information comes from.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say that when the present minesweepers are replaced, as they must be fairly soon, they will be replaced by ships which will give the Royal Naval Reserve an active sea-going rôle?

Mr. Buck: As I indicated earlier, it is anticipated that the Ton class craft will continue until the 1980s. We are considering the options open to us regarding replacements.

Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery School

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration has been given to moving the Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery School from Lulworth.

Mr. Blaker: The Royal Armoured Corps Gunnery Range at Lulworth is one of the sites being reviewed by the Defence Lands Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford under terms announced by my right hon. Friend on 14th January 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 244–247.]

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: May I ask whether, if the Nugent Committee requires the return of this range and the land to the public, consideration has been given to the cost or whether an estimate has been made of the cost of moving the gunnery school and of building new barracks elsewhere?

Mr. Blaker: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that until the committee has reported, and until its recommendations have been considered by Ministers, it is premature to talk about the cost of doing anything which the committee might or might not recommend.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there are a number of people who would like to see the area of land in military use reduced—perhaps he can tell us when the Nugent Committee is likely to report—no one in Dorset wants to see the Army go? Is he aware


that the Army employs 800 people and brings some £2 million into a county which has practically no industry? Is he further aware that the presence of skilled soldiers has for generations added much to the social and economic life of the country?

Mr. Blaker: We expect the Nugent Committee to report very soon. I note what my hon. Friend has had to say about the presence of the Army. That is a matter which I am sure will have been taken into account by the committee.

Pensions

Mr. John Morris: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the recent announcement on improved pensions to those injured and the dependants of those killed will apply to all Servicemen serving after March 1973; and why the ex gratia payments are limited in time and to those having served in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: As I said in the defence debate on 15th March, I hope that we shall shortly be able to make a statement about improved pensions provisions for death and injuries attributable to service, which will apply to all regular Service men who serve on or after 31st March 1973. At the same time I explained that, because these general improvements cannot apply retrospectively, we had thought it right to make some special provision outside the formal pension scheme for men invalided and women bereaved as a direct result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Morris: While the Minister's statement is welcome, may I ask him to explain why a distinction has been made between classes of Service men? First, all Service men, regardless of service in Northern Ireland, will benefit if they are injured or killed after 31st March of this year and are serving generally. Before 31st March of this year, and since 1969, that has applied only to those serving in Northern Ireland. How does he explain the situation to existing pensioners and dependants and to those who suffered in the last war and previously? Why should ex gratia payments be confined to those killed and injured between 1969 and 1973 in Northern Ireland as distinct from

those killed or injured in other parts of the world?

Mr. Gilmour: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, whenever an improvement is made in pensions there are bound to be some people just outside the line who will be disappointed. We regret that. However, we thought that both the House and the country would consider that Northern Ireland was a special category and that those who have been killed or wounded seriously in Northern Ireland should be dealt with as special cases.

Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend may have seen the early day motion in my name signed by more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House calling for special financial provision for those brave men who undertake special risks in Ulster today— namely, the Bomb Disposal Squad. Is he prepared to give consideration to such a request?

Mr. Gilmour: I have seen the motion to which my hon. Friend refers. As I said to my hon. Friend during the defence debate, we are considering this matter.

Mr. Morris: I realise that the Minister has drawn a line, but how does he explain the distinction to all the other Service men who might have benefited?

Mr. Gilmour: I hope that I can rely on the help of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. As I have said, the explanation is that we thought Northern Ireland was a very special case.

RAF Stations (Closure)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force stations and airfields have been closed since 1945; and how many of these are still retained by the Ministry of Defence.

Lord Lambton: I regret that, due to the large numbers of stations and airfields which were created during the war, this information involves a great deal of research. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the information.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am very disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply. He told me some time ago that 120,000 acres were still being held. By my computation that adds up to approximately 133


airfields. Why do we have to have the remnants of the Second World War still littering the British countryside?

Lord Lambton: I suppose it could be said that the majority of airfields are remnants of the Second World War.

Terrorism

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the possible formation of a specialist anti-terrorist unit.

Mr. Blaker: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the major responsibility for measures to counter terrorism in Great Britain: the maintenance of law and order is primarily for the police.

Mr. Fowler: Accepting that statement from my hon. Friend, and leaving to one side situations like Northern Ireland, may I ask whether it is not clear that the problem of terrorists, like those of urban guerrillas and hijackers, is likely to be with this country for many years to come and indeed within Europe? Is it not therefore a matter of urgency that a specialist section, probably involving consultations, certainly with his Department, should be urgently considered?

Mr. Blaker: I accept the general point that my hon. Friend made at the start of his question, but there have been no proposals from the Army for a special anti-terrorist unit as such. However, there has been a good deal of contingency planning, with which my Department has been fully associated.

Mr. Duffy: Would the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the Army does not lend itself to any departure, no matter how well-intentioned, which may amount to an infringement of the well-established frontier of civil/military relations?

Mr. Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that I said as much in our recent debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Wool Textile Industry

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many

people were employed in the wool textile industry at the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for June 1970.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): There were 113,500 in January 1973 and 142,000 in June 1970. The figure for January 1973 is provisional.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such a shortfall in employment in an area so heavily dependent on the wool textile industry is very severe? Will he bear it in mind that, in spite of the very welcome prosperity of industry at the moment, the cyclical trade may cause a downturn? When that happens, will he do all he can to try to reassure the industry and possibly introduce a redundancy scheme for the older workers, on similar lines to the schemes in the coal industry and the docks?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand that the "Neddy" on wool has some proposals, which I have not yet seen and which will of course be studied. The hon. Gentleman is right in that prospects for wool textiles are looking up. Order books are full in most firms, I understand, and unemployment has fallen by more than 2,500 over the year, from 5,840 in March 1972 to 3,100 in March 1973, so that is encouraging.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that all sections of the wool textile industry deserve warm congratulations? They have increased aggregate earnings to £32·7 million in January and February, which is a 45 per cent. increase on the commensurate period last year. Will he speed up the consultations which are being undertaken under the Industry Act with the NEDC for the textile trade, because it is important that it be made fully competitive for the next decade?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While I can endorse the achievements that my hon. Friend has mentioned in relation to the industry as a whole, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what he has said.

Mr. Ford: Is the Minister aware that, although I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) in the long term, in the short term there is a shortage


of skilled men in the wool textile industry, and not only in that industry but in the engineering and building industries? What are the Minister's proposals to rectify this shortage?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I pay tribute to the work of the training board for the wool industry and I hope that the proposals which are now being discussed in Committee on the new Bill will help if further in its work.

Equal Pay

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to discourage advertisements which suggest ways of avoiding the implementation of the Equal Pay Act.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have not been able to trace examples of such advertisements. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of particular cases, I will arrange for them to be looked into.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that advertisements have appeared recently in the Financial Times exhorting employers to anticipate equal pay day with Vaughan automatic assembly machines? Since so far it has not proved possible to replace women by automation, either in the home or anywhere else, might not such advertisements be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It remains my earnest hope that women will never be replaced by automation. At the same time, the OME report noted that equal pay might lead to the employment of women being checked by the improvement of layout and equipment so as to raise output per head, and by mechanisation and automation. Such a course is not of course forbidden by the Act, and may even be desirable in particular circumstances, even though some women may thereby lose their jobs. Obviously, we should look unfavourably on advertisements suggesting that mechanisation was necessarily the right response without considering the alternatives.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the Minister aware that the rigging of pay structures to avoid the obligations of the Equal Pay Act will be an offence against the Act

when it becomes fully operative? There is no doubt that rigging of that kind is taking place and that the best safeguard is to activate the provisions of Section 9 and bring in the interim order this year, which would enable all these suspect structures to be submitted to the Industrial Arbitration Board.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the overriding considerations of the counter-inflation policy have not made it possible to use that section now. He knows, however, that there is room for steady improvement towards equal pay within the present pay policy. OME studies have found little evidence of employers trying to circumvent the Act.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE

Ql. Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Departments of Trade and Industry and Employment concerning the operation of paragraphs 44-46 of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I cannot agree with that somewhat complacent reply? Is he further aware that, in my constituency, the firm of Rockware Glass has mysteriously closed down without any consultations with the four major unions involved, that it had maintained an expansion programme over the past decade, so that this was a grievous shock to everybody, and that the management completely ignored the Industrial Relations Code? Ministers have said that this is because of the peculiar circumstances of the firm but are not prepared to tell the unions what those circumstances were. Will the Prime Minister consider a special inquiry into this extraordinary and bizarre situation?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern over this matter, which he is quite right to express. He has, however, had a full explanation of the circumstances in this case in the letter sent to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development on


16th March. Everybody would regret any exceptional circumstances in which firms could not carry out the relevant paragraphs of the code, but the firm explained clearly the circumstances in which it feared a takeover bid and it had to take an urgent decision in the interests of its employees as a whole.

Mr. Bidweil: Does the Prime Minister know the extent to which land bidding and efforts, as in this case by Slater Walker, to buy shares induce a company to act in a hostile way and feel obliged to circumvent the Industrial Relations Code?

The Prime Minister: I do not have the details to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have said that the firm claims that it feared a takeover bid, and in the interests of the company and its employees as a whole it decided to concentrate its production in its two other factories, both of which, I believe, are in development areas.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (VISITS)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister on what criteria he accepts or rejects invitations to visit foreign countries.

The Prime Minister: I accept such invitations when I believe that to do so would be helpful in the national interest, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would help the national interest if he condemned the use of torture, particularly in the light of reports about its use in countries like Greece, Turkey, Brazil and South Africa? Will he assure us that he will look at torture reports without distinction? Will he refer to the Central Policy Review Staff the question of how effectively Britain can use her influence against the use of torture in any countries?

The Prime Minister: I will of course condemn torture wherever it is to be found. I would not be selective about particular countries, especially when there are difficulties in having first-hand information about the conditions there. But if one is to condemn it, one must condemn it wherever it takes place.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Whatever criteria my right hon. Friend observes for accepting invitations for visits overseas, may I ask him to be in no hurry to copy the example of the Leader of the Opposition in going to Czechoslovakia and saying that the events of 1968 were over and done with when the Russian Army is still in occupation there?

The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to visit that country.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Did Her Majesty's Government entertain the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from Czechoslovakia last week?

An Hon. Member: Where was Dubcek?

Mr. Wilson: Did the Foreign Secretary invite the Deputy Minister last week or did he not? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I think he has had reports of this—that I made clear throughout my visit to Czechoslovakia that I stood by what I and he said in 1968, and that in what has been totally misquoted by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Well, what did the right hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Wilson: —I explained the policy of Her Majesty's Government as explained to me by the Foreign Office and said that I supported it?

The Prime Minister: The Deputy Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia visited this country on an official visit to the Foreign Secretary, and this enabled my right hon. Friend to make representations to him, a continuing series of representations, about Mr. Hathaway. I am glad that Mr. Hathaway has been able to return to this country.
As far as Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy is concerned, it is not our policy in any way to say that the events of 1968 had best be forgotten; nor for that matter should the events of 1938, 1948 or 1968 be forgotten.

VIETNAM

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his official talks with President Thieu of Vietnam on his recent visit.

The Prime Minister: I had a useful talk with President Thieu on 10th April. Our talks covered a number of current international issues and the situation in South-East Asia in particular.

Miss Hall: Now that we have had sounds from those who attacked the Americans for so long but who are so very quiet about what the North Vietnamese are getting up to in Laos, South Vietnam and Cambodia, I hope my right hon. Friend told President Thieu that the British Government had not forgotten those people there who want freedom and do not want to come under the heel and the boot of the North Vietnamese.

The Prime Minister: I emphasised to President Thieu that we hoped that the agreement which had been signed not only by North Vietnam and South Vietnam but by the other great Powers would be carried out explicitly in every way.

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will make himself responsible for housing finance.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 12th April.—[Vol. 854, c. 1498–9.]

Mr. Meacher: As on mortgages the Government have changed their minds about subsidising market prices, why have they not changed their minds over food prices as well and over interest rates other than mortgage interest rates? Does not the Prime Minister intend, with his penchant for consistency, to ensure that his Departments do U-turns in unison?

The Prime Minister: If we feel that particular action for a limited period is justified, we carry it through. In these circumstances it was quite obvious that the building societies, in the position in which they found themselves, needed assistance of this kind for a limited period.

Mr. Frank Allann: As the subsidy to owner-occupiers has just been raised to £355 million a year, is it still the Prime Minister's intention to cut the subsidy to council house tenants by £128 million a year in real terms within the next three

years? Does he think that that is playing the game?

The Prime Minister: The total going to owner-occupiers was £336 million in 1971–72, plus the option mortgage scheme, costing £28 million in 1972–73; and there are 9 million owner-occupiers. The total going to council tenants in Great Britain in 1972–73 is £400 million, and there are 5·7 million occupiers.

Mr. Idris Owen: Would my right hon Friend care to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter into meaningful discussions with the Building Societies Association to discuss the long-term interest rate policy in order to avoid the dramatic changes we have experienced in the last 14 days?

The Prime Minister: Those meaningful discussions are already taking place.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on partnership between Government, trade unions and employers, delivered at Sidcup on 30th March.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made at Sidcup, Kent, on Friday 30th March 1973 on the question of a working partnership between Government, unions and employers.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Sidcup, Kent on 30th March on the Government's management of the economy.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to Sidcup Young Conservatives on 30th March on the subject of the economy.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech on economic matters he delivered in Sidcup, Kent on 30th March.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 2nd April.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not imperative that fresh discussions between the Government, the TUC and the CBI should be entered into without delay, especially in view of what has happened to the American phase 3 and in view of the need for the Government to protect those quiet people referred to in my right hon. Friend's speech who are not represented by major organisations such as the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will soon be possible to enter into discussions—I shall not say "fresh discussions" because discussions have continued the whole time—with the TUC and the CBI, either separately or in a tripartite arrangement. I expect that, to begin with, they will be held on a bilateral basis.

Mr. Atkinson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that some aspects of the speech he made about partnership spell out very dangerous trends if not corrected? Does he not agree that if he is to negotiate with either trade unions or employers or on a tripartite basis he can make concessions to those organisations only at the expense of being offensive to Parliament and the decisions taken in Parliament? If he intends to come to some agreement with outside bodies in this way, will he accept that we are now dangerously close to a form of junta government? Therefore, will he have another look at this whole trend of extra-parliamentary negotiation and agreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. If he reads the speech carefully, he will see that I said quite explicitly
under the authority of Parliament".
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman or any of his friends dislikes the idea of partnership instead of opposition in the industrial world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I prefer partnership. We have now been able to achieve a very considerable measure of this and it is continuing to increase.

Mr. Ashton: In his speech the Prime Minister said that the slogans of class warfare were becoming ever more meaningless. Is he aware that one of the things which encourage class warfare is

telling hospital workers that they cannot have their full pay rise and then immediately launching a new £45,000 yacht? Was it not a totally insensitive act to do that at a time of freeze and squeeze, when he is expecting low-paid workers to accept curtailment of their wages?

The Prime Minister: I have always been opposed to class warfare in this country. I do not believe that anything I have done has ever contributed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When the hon. Gentleman can only descend to personalities instead of arguments on the merits of the case, it shows how little case he has got. Nor do I believe that those who were working on my boat, who are proud of this superb example of British craft-manship, would in any way share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Redmond: If my right hon. Friend should notice some familiar faces missing from the Opposition benches on next Tuesday week, will he say whether those hon. Gentlemen will draw their parliamentary pay, or strike pay, or whether their families will draw social security benefits?

The Prime Minister: It is not really for me to see who is here or not.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall saying
As Conservatives, we must not forget the quiet people of Britain"?
Will he explain why the quiet people of Britain forgot the Conservatives at last Thursday's elections?

The Prime Minister: The quiet people of Britain already recognise the immense amount which the present Government have done, particularly for the poorer sections of the community. I have to tell the House that the figures I previously gave for the extent to which the position of the poorer had improved under the present Government have been revised.
The real net income, after allowing for tax and family income supplement, and after deducting the cost of school meals, milk and so on, rose between October 1970 and October 1972 by 6¼ per cent. a year for the man earning only £15 a week. For the man on average earnings the rise was 4½ per cent. a year. For the £200-a-week man it was 3½ per cent. a year. I have to tell the House


that those figures are higher than the figures I gave the House last time.

Mr. Thorpe: Whatever difficulties the Prime Minister may encounter in preaching conservatism on either side of industry, will he at least give general support to the call of the European Commission for basic rights protected by statute for workers within industry, the spread of profit-sharing and a two-tier system of administration in companies?

The Prime Minister: We are taking a full part in the discussions on these proposals, which originate from the summit meeting. We are now giving careful and detailed consideration to what the Commission has in mind.

STEEL PRICES

Mr. Varley: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the industrial and regional policies of Her Majesty's Government will be affected by the recent increase in steel prices.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): The forthcoming price increase will not affect the Government's industrial or regional policies. The concurrent move to the ECSC basing point price system will mean variations in the delivered costs of steel between one area and another, but the British Steel Corporation has sought to minimise the impact of the change by adopting a multi-basing point system.
The corporation's prices had fallen below an economic level and in deciding to raise them—from 30th April—by an average of 9½ per cent. the corporation has, I believe, struck a fair balance between the need to earn a return on its capital and the needs of the Government's counter-inflation programme, which it recognises as important, not only to the economy as a whole but also to its own business.

Mr. Varley: Does not the announcement made by the British Steel Corporation blow a hole right through the Government's counter-inflation policy? Will the Minister confirm that price increases of this magnitude would not have been permitted under phase 2 had they been subject to the Counter-Inflation Act? However desirable it may be—and

however anxious the corporation is—for the corporation to increase its prices, would it not, like everyone else, have had to fall in line with Government policies if external considerations had not exempted it?
Can the Minister answer the following questions? How much will the announced price increase add to industrial costs? Are manufacturers expected to absorb these additional costs or pass them on in higher prices? What effect will the increase have on the retail price index? Is it not a fact that the corporation is to increase its prices by about an additional 7 per cent. at the end of phase 2, which will in turn further increase industrial costs? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in the Prime Minister's "at a stroke" statement on 16th June 1970 he promised to break into the price-wage spiral by taking a firm grip on public sector prices, such as those for steel? Is this the firm grip about which the Prime Minister was talking? Has this promise now been dumped, along with all the others?

Mr. Boardman: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, this certainly does not blow a hole in the Government's prices and incomes policy. There is nothing about it which is incompatible with the policy. I was asked whether the increase was inconsistent with phase 2 Had the Corporation increased its prices by its allowable costs it is unlikely that there would have been any lesser increase than that which is now proposed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked by what amount the price increase would add to industrial costs. He further inquired about the effect on the retail price index. It is estimated that the effect on the retail price index will be to add less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. to the index. The increase in industrial costs cannot be estimated throughout, but estimates suggest that it will add about 1¼ per cent. to the cost of motorcars and possibly about 1 per cent. to shipbuilding costs. Coming to consumer products, it will add six-hundredths of a penny to the cost of a 16 oz. tin can. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will feel that these increases are not likely to cause any disruption in the price pattern.
He said that he understood that there would be a second round of increases


of about 7 per cent. by the corporation. I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to endorse everything he reads in the Press on these matters. What the corporation has said is that there will be a second increase of a much smaller amount at the end of phase 2. There is no authority for saying that it will be 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should not give credence to that figure.
He asked whether this move was compatible with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about controlling public sector prices in the price-wage spiral and taking a firm grip. He must recognise what has been done to hold down prices in the public sector. Steel prices were held down to a level which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries criticised as being too low. The increases were held down to 4·6 per cent. last year and 7 per cent. in the previous year.
The price of electricity and gas and other things has also been held down. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government have not absolutely fulfilled to the limit the pledge which they gave.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend not agree, in the light of the events of the last few months, that the existence of a massive nationalised sector in steel subject to arm-twisting by Governments and available for permanent subsidy from the taxpayer is becoming increasingly hard to reconcile with our commitments as a member of the European Coal and Steel Community? In view of that, and of the overriding priority which my right hon. Friends have always given to our European objectives, should we not now draw the appropriate conclusions?

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is our wish to follow the spirit of the European Community. We have done so and are doing so. In fixing its prices the corporation has set them at a level which will give a return on its investment so that the large resources employed in the industry produce a proper return. I am sure that my hon. Friend will think that is right. This is the pattern which he supports.

Mr. Lawson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how final and comprehensive is the list that appears in the Press showing

the multiple basing point system? Does he not feel that Glasgow comes out very badly because of the small number of products which appear to be based there?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because Glasgow has more basing points than any other centre in the United Kingdom.

Sir R. Cary: Will my hon. Friend state clearly whether it is true that the present price increase will be followed by another in the near future?

Mr. Boardman: In its announcement the corporation said that a second but smaller increase will be made after the end of phase 2.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many users of steel in this country are as much concerned about delivery dates from the corporation as about the price of steel? Is he further aware that the delivery for steel now being quoted by the Corporation has been extended from four months to eight months and, this week, to 10 months? Is it not a fact that if the corporation talked less about closing steel factories and a little more about producing more steel to meet the needs of British industry the proposed price increases might not be necessary because of increased efficiency and production?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The delays in the delivery of steel—and he quoted some very exceptional cases—are nothing to do with the proposed closures arising from the strategic planning of the steel industry. The price increase will have a contrary effect to that which he suggested. One problem—and it is only one because another involves the unfortunate strikes to which certain parts of the industry have been subjected—has been that the price levels in this country have been so much below the price levels overseas. This has had an effect on the availability and supply of steel here.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the menaces of price control is that when one eventually has to catch up with reality it is a sharper and more disagreeable experience than would otherwise be the case? May I ask him to comment on the extent to which he was consulted by the British Steel Corporation


about this decision? Did any discussions take place between himself and the corporation? Did he indicate to the corporation the Government's view about the preferred rate of increase? Above all, may I ask him to comment on the somewhat damaging assertion on the radio this morning by Mr. Dominic Harrod, the prestigious economics correspondent of the BBC, that the Government had asked the corporation to limit its rate of increase to 5 per cent.?

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend's last comment is without foundation. The price increases put forward are those of the corporation alone. There have been a whole series of consultations between the industry and the sponsoring Minister at regular intervals throughout the last 12 months. In such consultations and meetings, amongst other matters discussed was the possible price level, the pattern of the corporation's pricing, the pattern of its supply, and so on. The decision was made by the corporation alone.

Mr. Duffy: The Minister mentioned the return on capital as one of the Government's requirements of the British Steel Corporation. How far will the price increase enable the corporation to meet the Government's target of an 8 per cent. return on its net assets?

Mr. Boardman: The target is an average return on net assets of 8 per cent. on this year and the next three years taken together. This still remains the corporation's target.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that British steel is already artificially among the cheapest in the world, that these price increases are overdue, and that without them the precarious finances of the British Steel Corporation will suffer a disastrous downturn once again?

Mr. Boardman: I agree that the price increases are overdue. I think that the British Steel Corporation has struck a balance between making an appropriate increase to achieve the return and at the same time taking account of the Government's counter-inflation policy which it wants to support in its own interests as well as those of the national economy.

Mr. Douglas: May I ask the Minister to investigate the view held by many steel

users that there has been a large stockholding of steel by producers in anticipation of these price increases and that this stockholding has resulted in the delay in producing equipment, particularly for North Sea oil use?
Secondly, may I ask him to comment on the effect that these price increases will have on the shipbuilding industry which has taken on board many contracts at fixed prices?

Mr. Boardman: I have no evidence that there has been any large building up of stocks by stockholders. Indeed, it is physically impossible for this to take place to a large extent.
I understand that a large number of shipbuilding contracts are supported by long-term contracts with the steel suppliers. They will, therefore, be protected to that extent from the impact of these price increases.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Glasgow and the west of Scotland shipbuilders and engineers will be glad about the basing points allocation, there is concern that on the east coast, where we have a major North Sea oil and steel development, the new system will result in an addition to the price? May I ask my hon. Friend to indicate what percentage increase will be involved in steel prices in the east of Scotland compared with prices available in the West?

Mr. Boardman: I should not like to quote specifically for one area. I understand that only in exceptional circumstances will the increases relating to basing points exceed 4 per cent. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind, too, that when consumers study the price list and the impact of the basing points and at the same time look at their own mix of products and the possible variation in their ordering pattern, it might enable some of the impact to be minimised.

Mr. Atkinson: When steelworkers once again freely negotiate their own wages may I ask whether the Minister will welcome or regret their use of the figures that he has used in relating these increased costs to the effect on the price index? The hon. Gentleman is obviously not following the question that I am putting to him. He has a most perplexed look. May I ask him whether, when steelworkers once


again freely negotiate their wages, he will regret or welcome their use in those negotiations of the figures that he has used between a 9½ per cent. increase in steel prices and its effect on the price index?

Mr. Boardman: In any negotiations we welcome all the true figures coming forward. The material figure that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind is the impact on the retail price index, which I have said will be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend's statement mean that he proposes shortly to return to the pre-freeze arrangement whereby all the nationalised industries were required to show a certain return on the net capital invested and that there was no artificial holding down of prices? May we therefore expect an increase in prices for electricity, gas and all other nationalised industries authorised by the Department to bring the whole lot into line and resume the position which we had before the standstill in prices?

Mr. Boardman: I note what my hon. Friend said, but it goes a bit wide of the Question that was put to me.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the Minister to clarify the exact extent of his own or his Department's responsibility? First, did the British Steel Corporation consult the Minister, did he give his approval to the increase, and did he consult the Steel Consumers Consultative Council?
Secondly, did the Commission consult the Government and did the Government agree to a price recommended by the Commission.
Thirdly, did the Commission consult the Council of Ministers, and what view did the British Minister on that Council take? If the Minister is right that this responsibility belongs to the BSC alone, then is he not abdicating totally his responsibility for prices in this large nationalised industry?

Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the BSC had consulted me, I refer him to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr Biffen) on that matter.
Regarding approval, the question which I considered with the British Steel Cor-

poration concerned its overall corporate plan and pricing policy. It was for the corporation to say, as it did, what increase it proposed to make.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I or my right hon. Friend consulted the Commission and whether the Commission approved or recommended a price to the Government. It is not a matter for us to consult the Commission upon, nor did we. We do not require to ask for or to obtain the Commission's approval and it does not need to obtain ours. It is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to give the Commission notice that it is making an increase, and it will have done this. Some weeks ago the Steel Consumers' Consultative Council put forward its proposal for a two-tier stage increase, not dissimilar from that which has been put forward by the corporation. I read, as no doubt did the right hon. Gentleman, the Steel Consumers Consultative Council's comments upon this matter today. It is generally favourable to what has been done.

Mr. Benn: It is a matter of public record that the Commission approached the British Government about the freeze in steel prices under phase 1. What answer did the Government give to the Commission on its approach on steel prices?
Secondly, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer the question: what rôle did the British Minister in Brussels play when the BSC approached the Commission for its view on the proposed price increases?

Mr. Boardman: There is no effective consultation between the BSC, the Commission, and the Government on this matter. The corporation gave the Commission notice of the price increases which it proposed to make.
Regarding correspondence and consultation between the Commission and the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission expressed concern that steel prices had not been increased before but had been held on 1st January under the standstill. The Commission has recognised the problems and the need for the country to deal with inflation. It has accepted the position and will now have received the proposals which have been put forward.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? I twice put to the Minister a question as to the attitude adopted by the British Minister in the Common Market about the proposed price increases for steel. The Minister did not answer this question. This has happened before.
I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of parliamentary accountability, whether a Minister is responsible to the House of Commons for the vote or decision of British Ministers in the Common Market where these decisions affect domestic matters and therefore are of concern to the House.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, as he knows, that this is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of ministerial answers.
The second point raises rather wider issues and I will consider whether it is necessary to make a ruling on that point.

Mr. Boardtnan: It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, if I were permitted to comment on that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the first was not a point of order. Perhaps it is to the second point of order that the hon. Member wishes to speak.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grimond—a point of order.

Mr. Grimond: The point of order I sought to raise with you earlier today, Mr. Speaker, concerns the Zetland County Council Bill. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is now blocking this Bill, in a previous debate made certain allegations and stated certain facts about the acquiral of properties in the north of Scotland which have been well known for the last two years. By this Bill, to which the hon. Member objects, the local council seeks to control some of these activities.
Last week he said he did not necessarily object to the Bill in principle. I submit that this is a Second Reading and that we are concerned with principle. At

a later stage the numerous petitions against the Bill will, of course, be subject to scrutiny, which is what the hon. Member wants. But he is in my view abusing the processes of the House because, as to what he wants and what he said later, he does not necessarily object to the principle of the Bill. He is merely causing expense to the local authority and holding up extremely urgent legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Douglas, on a point of order.

Mr. Douglas: I apologise for raising the question in this manner but I believe the point needs clarification.
I seek guidance here. I understand that a Second Reading of a private Bill relates to objection on the grounds of public policy. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said on 12th April—and I apologise for not having given him notice about raising this:
Is it in order that we have to object when what we want is proper parliamentary scrutiny, and when we are not necessarily against the principle of the Bill?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 1479.]
If that is the case, is it in order to have this type of objection when the hon. Member is not objecting to the principle of the Bill and when proper parliamentary scrutiny would be obtained in the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised this as a point of order last Thursday. I am obliged to the hon. Member for having given notice of the point. I am therefore to some extent prepared for it. Whether my ruling will enlighten or not is another matter.
I should draw the attention of the House to the distinction between the Second Reading of a public and of a private Bill shown on page 900 of Erskine May as follows:
… a public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the Bill conditionally and subject to the proof of such allegations before the Committee.
There is no rule which debars any Member from discussing any aspect of a private Bill on Second Reading whether


the matter be one to which he objects or one on which he wishes to obtain further information.
The Zetland County Council Bill is a substituted Bill, that is, a measure introduced as a provisional order on which the Chairman of Ways and Means together with the Lord Chairman have reported under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 that questions of public policy of such novelty and importance were raised that they ought to be dealt with by private Bill. These are matters which may properly be canvassed by the House before the Bill is allowed to proceed.
Hon. Members will know that private Bills are set down for consideration at seven o'clock on an evening chosen by the Chairman of Ways and Means after objection voiced in the House, that objection being not necessarily to the merits of the Bill but to the House being asked to pass a stage of the Bill without debate at 2.30 p.m.
I hope that that clarifies the situation.

Mr. English: Is there not one point of some importance here? The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has explained that my hon. Friend is blocking the Bill. If an hon. Member blocks a public Bill on a Friday, it stops and cannot pass. Is it not the case that the Chairman of Ways and Means always has the power to set private Bills down for debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is so.

MINIMUM RETIREMENT PENSION BILL

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a minimum retirement pension related to average earnings.
The principle of my Ten-Minute Rule Bill is of vital consequence to the senior citizens of this country. I beg leave to bring in a Bill to establish that a national insurance single pension and dependent wife's pension be related in real terms to national average earnings and progressively upgraded over the period of the next four years.
Since 1948, with little change under both Labour and Conservative Governments, the single State pension, at present £6·75, has been about one-fifth of average earnings and for a couple about one-third of average earnings. At present for a couple it stands at £10·90. The schedule of my Bill would lift that level in four annual stages until it became one-third for the single pensioner and one-half for the couple.
Last autumn average earnings were over £35 a week. On present figures my proposal to start with would mean about £16 a Week for a couple. This is, of course, the current demand of the TUC and the Labour Party. The TUC have often related the State pension to earnings and pointed to its total inadequacy at the present level. It stands to reason that very many are obliged to apply under the hated means-testing arrangements for supplementary benefit.
The Social Services Department has spent a great deal of money seeking to find out those in need through what is called "the lack of take-up". My Bill would go a long way towards overcoming that problem. Supplementary means-tested benefits for the aged have been on the increase, which itself speaks for the poverty level of the basic pension. The general index of retail prices is not a good measure, but basic food price increases are. Pensioners today are literally being priced out of the butchers' shops and the food markets.
Members on both sides of the House are sick and tired of hearing the boasts of the Government about their pensions efforts. What do hon. Members think


£7·75 for a single pensioner and £12·50 for a couple under the Chancellor's announcement on increases will buy when October is reached?
A Government whose Prime Minister nets £8 a week in his pocket under Budget tax relief must have a neck of brass to tell the pensioners that an increase of only £1 is to be made and that that is all that can be afforded in the autumn.
My proposals would without doubt cost a great deal of money. All worthy aims are costly. But I firmly believe that the majority of people in the nation desire to find ways to improve the lot of our old people who are too old to work and too young to die.
The Government claim that they appreciate the need to do better than they have done up to the present time. My Bill points the way. There is no reason why the Government should not provide time to pass my Bill into law.
Young people in Task Force, many trade union friends and Labour Party friends and friends outside narrow party political confines are giving me their full support today for proposals of this kind which must eventually become law. Although I did not seek the aid of many of these friends, when they became aware

of the proposals they confirmed their support. I know that young Liberals and young Socialists are on my side, the young Liberals supporting the principle of the Bill if not the detailed figures.
I know that there is widespread concern about hypothermia as it affects our old people, and now, with the ever-rising price of protein food, the effect on the old people by the autumn could become quite catastrophic. Surely there is enough public support and support in the House to push through this long overdue change.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Michael Meacher,. Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. William Molloy, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Alec Jones, Mr. Thomas Torney and Mr. Ted Fletcher.

MINIMUM RETIREMENT PENSION

Bill to establish a minimum retirement pension related to average earnings, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th May and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It may help the House if I explain the Government's reasons for bringing forward the Bill and the reasons for the main provisions in it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will speak at the end of the debate to deal with the detailed questions of law which may be raised on particular provisions. I should like to take this opportunity, however, to pay tribute to him for his efforts over the last 12 months. He has had to shoulder a very large additional responsibility because of direct rule. He has also visited Northern Ireland almost every week—in itself a major commitment which has meant considerable personal sacrifices. As a legal adviser he has been of particular help to me, and I am grateful to him.
The onus must be on Her Majesty's Government to prove to the House why the special legal provisions in the Bill are necessary in the current situation in Northern Ireland. We here have a clear responsibility to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and for the security forces who are protecting them.
Terrorism still constitutes a major threat to peace and order in Northern Ireland; a threat which, if it is allowed to go unchecked, will jeopardise all efforts to bring about peaceful political progress. The Government made it clear in the White Paper which was debated on 28th and 29th March that there is no purpose to which it is
more firmly committed than the restoration of the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and whatever means are necessary to that end will be made available".
We cannot allow a small number of vicious killers to dictate to the United Kingdom Government and the people of Northern Ireland and prevent a return to peace and normality. But we must recognise, and we cannot shirk this responsibility, that appropriate powers

must be given to the security forces, and that the administration of justice must be effective.
No one can say that we are not using the normal processes of law to the maximum extent possible. The total number of people charged this year is already 478, bringing the total since "Operation Motorman" to more than a thousand. No fewer than 48 people were charged with serious crimes in the first 11 days of this month.
We will continue to bring suspected persons before the courts wherever possible, and I can assure the House that the special provisions for detention in this Bill, if agreed to by Parliament, will be used only in cases where the normal legal procedures are clearly inadequate. Circumstances in Northern Ireland, however, have been such that the normal processes of the law are not wholly effective in dealing with terrorism, largely due to the use of intimidation. The Government therefore appointed a Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Diplock to consider whether changes could be made in the administration of justice in order to deal more effectively with terrorism without using internment under the Special Powers Act.
I pay tribute to Lord Diplock and his colleagues, Professor Cross, Mr. George Woodcock and Sir Kenneth Younger, who studied this problem so carefully and so expeditiously.
Because of the desirability of removing internment by the Executive from the statute book, the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 was laid before Parliament as an interim measure until the Commission under Lord Diplock had reported. When the Commission reported it recommended changes in the administration of justice, but came to the conclusion that an extra-judicial process would still be necessary to deal with terrorists for as long as intimidation—and the fear of it— prevented witnesses from giving evidence against terrorists. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Commission, and, with minor amendments, they are incorporated in the Bill.
These changes in criminal procedures, while not removing fundamental safeguards, should enable some terrorists who might otherwise have to be dealt with


through the detention procedures to be dealt with through the courts. In view of the Commission's conclusion that an extra-judicial process would continue to be necessary, the Government have decided that the provisions of the Detention of Terrorists Order should continue.
We have recognised, however, the unsatisfactory nature of using an Order-in-Council procedure for such an important matter and have, therefore, proposed the repeal of the order and the re-enactment of its provisions in the Bill.
It was not only the internment provisions of the Special Powers Acts that gave concern, and the Government announced last year that all the provisions would be reviewed. This pledge has been kept, and the main feature of the review has been whether the provisions of those Acts, and the regulations made under them, were necessary to combat terrorism. The Bill contains the results of the review. If passed by Parliament, the Special Powers Acts will be repealed in their entirety and many of their provisions will disappear. The powers which will be retained are those which the Government consider absolutely essential in existing circumstances. They are not reproduced in the same general form in which they appear in the Special Powers Act, but have been drafted to meet the specific needs of the security situation. The House will make its own judgment about those needs.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I have a great deal to say; I want to explain in considerable detail what we are seeking to do because I recognise the importance of these provisions.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I promise him that, whatever the provocation, this will be the only interruption. While he is dealing with the special powers Acts, will he confirm that, although he has generally repealed the Acts, all the powers that were open to the Minister for Home Affairs under the Acts still exist in embryo form in Clause 23(1) of the Bill, and that, although he has done away with them in detail, the general power to acquire those powers still remains with the Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. and learned Friend will reply in detail to that question, but perhaps I should explain that we have removed those powers which we do not think would be necessary.
It would be a grave responsibility to commit the security forces to their appallingly difficult duties in Northern Ireland and then refuse to give them the powers needed to carry out those duties. I hope that these provisions of the Bill will be looked at in that light. It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed. This is an important point for the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in particular to recognise.
The Bill therefore provides that none of the main provisions should last for more than a year without an order being made which would have to be approved by Parliament. I believe such a procedure to be an assurance in itself that, given a cessation of violence for political ends in Northern Ireland, the Government will be only too glad to see these provisions brought to an end.
After only a year from the passing of the Bill the Government would have to consider whether any part of it should stay in force. It would be a welcome day for the people of Northern Ireland if by the end of that year no need for these provisions existed. But let the men of violence equally be under no illusion; Her Majesty's Government will certainly seek to renew the powers and use them without fear or favour to anyone if violence and intimidation continue.
I should like to make one other general point. It has been argued that detention could be ended if the ordinary criminal procedures were changed even more radically than was recommended by the Diplock Commission. The Commission itself considered this problem. Its conclusion was that it would be far too dangerous to alter the administration of justice by removing safeguards which it considered fundamental to the criminal process in normal times. Its reason was that the reputation of the courts, and trust in them, would suffer and might not recover.
The Government accept that conclusion. Of course, it is necessary to build into any extra-judicial system as many safeguards of a judicial kind as is practicable, and that is what we have done in the detention procedures which are confirmed in this Bill. Indeed, the Dip-lock Commission agreed that just results can be obtained by extra-judicial processes, but, for the reasons I have already given, the Commission rejected their use in an ordinary court of criminal law.
Let me emphasise again that the procedures for detention are quite different from internment. No one may now be detained for more than 28 days without his case being referred for adjudication to an independent, legally-qualified commissioner who must inquire into any case referred to him to see whether the person has been concerned in terrorism, and, if so, whether his detention is necessary for the protection of the public. If the person is detained by order of a commissioner he has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
A person appearing before a commissioner is given in advance a statement of the terrorist activities in which he is alleged to have engaged, and may give evidence and be legally represented. Where these procedures contain departures from the normal judicial process these are necessary because, as the Commission reported, witnesses will not give evidence in the ordinary courts. The procedures contain all possible safeguards against injustice.
The Bill proposes furthermore a new safeguard. When the Detention of Terrorists Order was drafted, it was not thought appropriate to include a mandatory review provision for persons detained as the order was an interim measure pending the findings of the Diplock Commission. Now that the Commission has found such a procedure to continue to be necessary, it is only reasonable that a mandatory review be included. Accordingly, the Bill provides that once a person has been ordered by a commissioner to be detained his case will automatically be referred back to the commissioner after one year and then at intervals of six months, as necessary, so that the commissioner can decide whether his continued detention is justified.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the commissioners themselves as well as to the members of the Appeal Tribunal, who are operating these procedures in the most trying and difficult circumstances. Of the 451 people brought before them by 12th April—most of whom had been detained under the previous procedures—106 have been released as a result of their decisions. A further five have been released after appealing to the tribunal. These figures prove conclusively that the commissioners are not a rubber stamp for executive decisions. Under internment a man could be committed to indefinite denial of freedom by a signature of a minister: under the new procedure this cannot happen. A Minister can only sign an Interim Custody Order; the case for detention has to be tested before the commissioners and if desired an appeal to the Detention Appeal Tribunal. Although I have not interned anyone myself and indeed had by the autumn released 561 internees, I realised at first hand the political pressures and dangers inherent in internment, as indeed did the Ulster Unionist Party, whose paper, "Towards the Future". recommended a change in procedure. Of course, the special procedures under the Detention of Terrorists Order can be criticised judicially; but they are not a mere substitute for internment without trial. They are completely different for the reasons I have given and provide substantial safeguards.
I have tried to explain the broad outline of the Bill. I must now turn to detail. Part I of the Bill deals with the changes in the administration of justice recommended by the Diplock Commission. All of these changes relate to certain offences commonly committed by terrorists and called in the Bill "scheduled offences". They are listed in Schedule 4. The schedule includes fewer offences than recommended by the Diplock Commission in the Appendix to its report but is, I believe, sufficient in order to deal with serious acts of terrorism. For some of the offences it is provided that a certificate may be given to the effect that a particular case should not be treated as a scheduled offence. This is to enable crimes regarded as not connected with the emergency to be singled out and dealt with


in the ordinary way. Provision for this is contained in Notes 1 and 2 at the end of Part I of Schedule 4.
I must inform the House straight away that the references here to the Director of Public Prosecutions as being responsible for issuing the certificates is an error which occurred in the printing of the Bill. The intention is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General should be responsible for giving these certificates, not the Director of Public Prosecutions. In a field as sensitive as this, the responsibility ought to rest on the Attorney-General. He is directly responsible and answerable to Parliament for his actions, and it is right that he should be personally responsible for deciding matters of this kind. An appropriate amendment will be moved at a later stage.
Taking the changes in the administration of justice in the order in which they appear in the Bill, the first is that trials of scheduled offences on indictment should be by a judge sitting alone, without a jury. Trial by jury is highly valued in this country, and the Government needed very strong reasons for accepting that it should be even temporarily set aside. It is not with pleasure that we have concluded that those reasons are convincingly set out in Chapter 5 of the Diplock Report.
We simply cannot risk the widespread acquittal of people in Northern Ireland, from whatever faction, who ought on a judicial view of the evidence to have been convicted. Through fear and intimidation, this is a risk, and we must act accordingly.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the Secretary of State able to give the House the outcome of the 478 cases which have been charged? Can he give us a figure of the number of acquittals and the extent to which it is thought by the Government that a proportion of those acquittals was plainly perverse? That is important factual material affecting our minds on some of these provisions.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will do his best to answer the question. Equally, one has to accept that it may not always be the past

that is important but rather consideration of what might happen in the future. One has to look at both aspects, and my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not want to give way too often.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I appreciate that, but, as the Attorney-General will be replying at the end, we shall not have the opportunity of considering in this debate matters that might help us in our discussion of the Bill. Has there been definite evidence of juries having brought in perverse verdicts on the facts given to them in the courts? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any help on that?

Mr. Whitelaw: I always treat very delicately any legal areas, but it would be right for me to say that some of the verdicts given have been rather hard to understand. I do not think that I should go further than that.
The main effect of the change which is made in Clause 1 is that the judge, and not the jury, will be responsible for the verdict. Existing rights of appeal—and this is important—are unaffected.
The second change is to put restrictions on the granting of bail to people charged with scheduled offences. The Diplock Commission found that bail was granted much more freely and indiscriminately in Northern Ireland than it was in England and Wales, for reasons which were unrealistic during the emergency.
When intimidation is rife and the security forces are fully stretched, it is important that people charged with serious crime should, as a general rule, be kept in secure conditions until they have been tried. Clause 2, therefore, prevents bail being granted except by a judge of the High Court, and then only if he is satisfied that the accused will comply with the conditions of bail, will not interfere with witnesses and will not commit offences. In addition, for the more serious scheduled offences the judge will be able to grant bail only if the applicant also shows either that refusal to grant it would cause him exceptional hardship or that he has been in custody for more than


a fixed period without being tried or committed for trial. I will not disguise from the House that these are undoubtedly severe restrictions in relation to the limited number of offences to which they apply. The Diplock Commission was in no doubt that these measures were justified at the present time.
Clause 3 is not based on a recommendation of the Diplock Report but stems from it. It provides that the trials of scheduled offences on indictment should be in Belfast. This is desirable in the interests of security, and does not prejudice any aspect of the trial. To minimise delays in hearing cases, the clause also enables the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to call upon county court judges to try cases involving scheduled offences at the Belfast City Commission.
The Diplock Commission made two important recommendations about the admissibility of statements as evidence in trials of terrorists.
The first is concerned with statements made by witnesses, and this is dealt with in Clause 4. The proposal is that a statement made in the presence of the police should in certain circumstances be admissible at the trial of a scheduled offence in the absence of the witness. The circumstances are that the witness is dead or medically unfit to attend; or that he is outside Northern Ireland and it would be impracticable to secure his attendance; or that he cannot be found.
The other recommendation made by the Commission about the admissibility of evidence concerns confessions and is dealt with by Clause 5. This provides that a confession made to the police shall be admissible evidence at the trial of a scheduled offence unless the person who made it was subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. Some hon. Members may feel anxiety about the possible effects of this clause. Let me say immediately that the existing rules for police practice and procedure will not in any way be relaxed. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the evidence which has been perfectly fairly and acceptably obtained should not be excluded from a trial for technical reasons. These technical reasons are fully explained in paragraphs 73 to 92 of the Diplock Report, which merit close study.
The effect of Clause 6 is to change the onus of proof with regard to possession of arms or explosives where a person is charged with an offence under the statutes listed in the clause. The clause is based on the recommendation of the Diplock Commission, dealt with in paragraphs 61 to 72 of its report.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will, if necessary, deal more fully with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 in winding up the debate.
The rest of Part I deals with the Diplock Commission's recommendations as to the treatment of young offenders. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have found Chapter 9 the saddest part of the Commission's report. Unfortunately, it is all too true that young people under 17 play a serious part in terrorism, and it is essential that the courts should have powers to deal with them appropriately.
At present, young people—that is, people over 14 and under 17 years of age —may be given a fixed custodial sentence of any length if they are convicted of an offence carrying a maximum penalty for an adult of 14 years' imprisonment or more. Clause 7 will extend this power to scheduled offences normally punishable by five years' imprisonment or more. The Diplock Commission would have gone further but the Government are satisfied that the clause goes far enough. The clause also increases the maximum period for which a young person can be sent to a remand home from one month to six months if the young person has been convicted of a scheduled offence. As I shall mention later, there will be no fixed minimum penalties for any offence.
The Commission recommended the setting up of a secure unit to deal with young offenders. It assumed that this would take the form of a remand home. In fact, I have proposed the establishment of a new institution, part training school and part remand home, which will have secure conditions and will cater for people of all denominations.
I am glad to say that representatives of all denominations have agreed to cooperate in the management of such a school. I am at present awaiting the report of the inspector who has held a public inquiry into a proposed site. As a consequence of this new school being set up, Clause 8 amends the existing


Northern Ireland legislation transferring from the courts to the Government responsibility for allocating offenders to training schools. This will enable the offender to be allocated to the most appropriate school at any time.
The clause also enables rules to be made governing the temporary release of, and remission for good conduct of, people sentenced to a remand home. The power is necessary now that people may be sent to a remand home for up to six months. This clause is designed to be permanent, and is not, therefore, subject to the renewal procedure.
The rest of the Bill is a consequence of the review of the Special Powers Act. With the repeal of that Act, it becomes necessary to create a power of arrest linked with the detention procedures. Detention orders may be made in respect of "terrorists"; the Bill, therefore, gives the police power to arrest people suspected of "terrorism". The Bill also gives the police a power to arrest people suspected of scheduled offences or offences under the Bill. It remains the Government's intention that whenever possible people should be dealt with under the criminal procedures rather than those which may lead to detention. The two powers together are a good deal narrower in scope that the existing powers in the Special Powers Act but are, I believe, adequate.
The Diplock Commission recommended that the Army should have one simple power of arrest. The reasons are set out in Chapter 6 of its report. Clause 11 is based on its recommendations and would allow a member of Her Majesty's Forces on duty to arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of committing, having committed or being about to commit an offence and detain him for up to four hours. If, having so arrested a person, the Army considers that its suspicions are justified, it will have to call a police constable to re-arrest the person under an appropriate power within four hours. Otherwise the person must be released.
Powers of entry and search in the Bill are closely limited as to their purposes. These are: to effect arrest, in Clauses 9, 10 and 11; to search for arms and explosives, in Clauses 12 and 13; and to search for people unlawfully detained,

in Clause 14. The existing powers in the Special Powers Act allow search for much wider purposes. Most of the powers in the Bill are exerciseable only on suspicion, and, in the case of dwelling-houses, only with the authority of a senior officer. Some, however, are exerciseable without suspicion. These are: search of premises other than a dwelling-house for munitions; search of people and vehicles in public; and search of premises for kidnapped people whose lives are in danger.
There are good reasons for this. Time allows me to give only one simple example: the security forces have reason to suspect that arms are being moved by a particular route. It is only reasonable that they should search all the traffic on that route; but they cannot say that they suspect each vehicle of carrying the arms. We have tried to meet such essential practical needs while at the same time incorporating safeguards, such as the need for authority from a senior officer before a search of a dwelling-house is undertaken. I know hon. Members will want to scrutinise these powers carefully, and I hope, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General hopes, that they will.
The Bill also makes provision, in Clause 16, for the security forces to infringe private rights in case of operational necessity; for example, to enter a garden to avoid gunfire. It also allows more substantial infringements of private rights, such as the requisitioning of property, but only under the authority of the Secretary of State. There is provision for compensation in respect of these and other infringements of private property rights in Clause 24.
Clause 18 enables organisations concerned in or encouraging terrorism to be proscribed by order of the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of Parliament. Organisations to be proscribed are in Schedule 2. When the Bill was published, it was apparent from this schedule that the Government had decided that Republican clubs should no longer be unlawful. This being so, I was asked whether I could not act quickly, under powers already available, to remove Republican clubs from the list of unlawful associations in the Special Powers Act. In the circumstances of the forthcoming elections, this seemed both


reasonable and sensible. Accordingly, on 11th April I made regulations under the Special Powers Act removing Republican clubs from the list of unlawful associations. The regulations come into operation today. They are made under the urgency procedure provided for in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, and will cease to have effect unless approved by each House of Parliament within 40 days.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East) rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I am just coming to a very important part of my speech, but I will, of course, give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McMaster: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he tell me what evidence there has been in recent days that the official IRA has been engaging in terrorist activity and whether he regards Republican clubs as an outlet for the official IRA?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I should confine myself to saying that I have considered all the evidence I can gather about Republican clubs, and in all the circumstances I think it right not to proscribe them any longer. I have taken that decision, which has been accepted very widely. I think this was the correct decision.
I want to come to some other decisions which in themselves, as my hon. Friend will be quick to point out, are different.
I have now been asked questions particularly about the proscribing of Sinn Fein. It is important first to set out the full position as it stands. Under electoral law, anyone may stand and may put the name of a proscribed organisation on the ballot paper. But he has no immunity, and identifying himself with a proscribed organisation could lead to a prosecution either under the Special Powers Act as it stands today or, of course, subsequent to the passage of this Bill, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General considers such a prosecution correct. At present the organisations now named in Schedule 2 are proscribed under the Special Powers Act and will remain so until this Bill is passed unless regulations are brought before this House to remove them from

the list of unlawful associations as was done for the Republican clubs.
Her Majesty's Government will consider carefully all the representations made on this subject in debates both yesterday and today. I must emphasise, however, that an extremely difficult and balanced judgment has to be made which does not simply concern one proscribed organisation and has implications outside elections altogether. The House must not forget the close associations which may exist between one organisation, claiming to be non-violent, and another, which openly wages a campaign of terror.
Maria Maguire, who left the Provisional IRA disillusioned last August, said in her recent book that the political respectability of the Provisional Sinn Fein was deliberately exploited by the Pro-visionals. The president, Rory O'Brady, gave radio and television interviews claiming he could not speak for the Provisionals whilst all the time being a member of the Irish Republican Army Council, the IRA's governing body, conducting the violence.
I cannot do better than to repeat again to the House the passage in the White Paper upon which any such decision must and will be based:
No person or organisation can expect to be allowed to claim to be acting politically at one moment and then, given what appears a favourable opportunity, to turn to violence and subversion.
As wel las repealing the Special Powers Act the Bill also does away with the Northern Ireland Acts which require fixed minimum sentences to be passed for certain offences. These provisions have not worked satisfactorily and do not help to deal with terrorism. Only one of the provisions in those Acts—a provision increasing the maximum penalty for riotous behaviour from six to 18 months' imprisonment—is retained, by Clause 21 of the Bill.
The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make supplementary regulations for the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. This is quite different from the power in the Special Powers Act, which left practically all the substantive provisions for arrest, search, detention, and so on, to be dealt with in regulations. Regulations needed at present are in Schedule 3. They are


"regulatory" in the true sense. Any new regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution by this Parliament.
The vote on the Ten-Minute Rule Bill introduced last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has now raised an issue which Her Majesty's Government believes the House should consider in the context of this Bill. I should remind the House that this legislation was designed simply to implement the recommendations of Lord Diplock's Commission and to repeal various parts of the Special Powers Act. But there is, as the House knows, a provision in another Act, namely the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which retains a mandatory sentence of capital punishment for the murder of any constable on duty or person in the service of the Crown or anyone assisting such persons in the maintenance of law and order and any murder done in the course or furtherance of any seditious conspiracy.
Although this was an Act quite distinct from the Special Powers Act and no reference to the provision was made in Lord Diplock's report, the issue does come to this House in new circumstances because of the legislative and administrative changes in Northern Ireland since the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 and the wider responsibilities here in Westminster and Whitehall.
Furthermore, if the House passes legislation to give effect to the recently-published White Paper, the Government will remain responsible to this House for matters of law and order for the time being. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the House will wish to take into account in reaching a decision on this particular question considerations somewhat wider than the straight issue of capital punishment itself. There is the question of the relevance of capital punishment in terrorist campaigns.
This House also has to answer whether, having so recently declared itself decisively once again in favour of the abolition of capital punishment for murder, it wishes to retain it specifically in a part of the United Kingdom where it has the responsibility. In order that the House may be given an opportunity to decide on these issues, Her Majesty's Government are tabling a new clause abolishing capita! sentences under the Criminal

Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will arrange for this new clause to be committed to a Committee of the whole House and to provide time for it on that basis. I also understand that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will have a free vote on this side of the House when the clause is debated, as has always been the custom on matters of capital punishment. I will reserve any further comment until the House comes to debate the matter in more detail.
The Bill contains some features unpalatable to a democratic society. Her Majesty's Government do not disguise the fact that it imposes serious limitations on the traditional liberty of the subject. But those who pursue their aims by violent means are not interested in democracy or freedom. And while the Bill is urgent and essential, it is not the whole picture. The other side is the Charter of Human Rights which was outlined in the White Paper and explained in some detail by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State in his closing speech in the White Paper debate. These comprehensive and complementary provisions for the Charter of Human Rights will, of course, be permanent and will be contained in the constitutional Bill and in the discrimination in employment Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked in the course of the debate on the White Paper that we should, with the present Bill, publish the text of the human rights provisions. That has not proved possible. But the constitutional Bill containing some of the human rights provisions will, as I said yesterday, be introduced well before the elections and the discrimination in employment Bill will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter. These are very important factors on the other side of the problem. It is on that basis and on that understanding that I ask the House to approve the Bill which is before it today.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the recent White Paper proposals were before the House I said on the first day of the debate on behalf of the Opposition:
On principle therefore, we support the White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973 Vol. 853, c. 1332.]


On the following day my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government had the right to ask for the backing of the House.
This is still the case. We support the White Paper and, in the context of today, the ending of the Special Powers Act; we also support the Charter of Human Rights and the control by Parliament of emergency legislation. I also said on that occasion that we should examine critically legislation stemming from the White Paper and I now stress that we shall certainly carry out that examination of the present Bill.
It is always the duty of the House to scrutinise legislation, but when considering legislation of this type there is an even greater duty upon hon. Members in all parts of the House. We mark out for criticism countries in Eastern Europe, as well as countries such as South Africa, Portugal, Rhodesia because of their denial of human freedom and the rule of law. By this legislation the Government are seeking to alter the normal process of the judiciary, and procedures such as detention need to be carefully examined and scrutinised in Committee— and this we shall do. We have grave reservations about many of the clauses and schedules, and the quite proper length of time which the Secretary of State has taken to deal with the full meaning of the clauses indicates that he and the Government realise the full seriousness of the steps which they are taking.
If we are to look in great detail at these provisions we must face up to the peculiar situation in Northern Ireland— a situation involving bombing and killing. This year already 94 people have been killed—one might say equivalent to a plane load. There have been 772 persons killed since the beginning of the emergency. In recent weeks five tons of arms were found off the Irish coast and there is much more that is not reported. Hon. Members in all parts of the House who have visited Northern Ireland in the Lower Falls, Andersontown, Shankhill, the Ardoyne, the Forkhill Crossing on the border, or who have visited the hospitals there will know that the situation on law and order in Northern Ireland is a most unusual one. We do not ignore

that situation in the criticisms and reservation which we have about many of these provisions. We know that there are private armies under military command and we have to face up to that fact.
The other unusual feature in terms of world opinion is that the situation in Northern Ireland is not the classical colonial situation. We must remember that in the South there is an elected Government with an Opposition party which talks only of changes in Ireland being brought about by consent. It was the Irish Government who picked up the German vessel, and on Friday last the elected TD and Minister of Justice in the South made it clear that the new Government would be tough with the IRA. The Provisional IRA was not acting on behalf of the people of the South, as was shown by the ballot box results.
The Government of the United Kingdom, like the Government of Northern Ireland, have a duty to deal with those who shoot and kill, and we are certainly not arguing the contrary. The Government have the right to take extraordinary measures given the situation in Northern Ireland, but we shall still look very critically at many of the clauses in this Bill. However, because of the peculiar situation in Northern Ireland, my advice to this side of the House is that we should not deny the Government the Second Reading of this Bill, although we have grave criticisms and doubts which we shall express on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report.
The first point I bring to the notice of the House is that on which the right hon. Gentleman finished—the charter of human rights. I remind the House of a letter which I quoted on 11th December, as reported in columns 94 and 95, and which I had written to the Social Democratic and Labour Party after they had come over here to meet the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I confirmed our opposition to the Special Powers Act. I suggested a commission to consider this in the context of a Bill of Rights. I also said that this commission would consider the question of the maintenance of the rule of law in circumstances such as those that have prevailed in Northern Ireland in recent years—in other words, that it is the duty of the Government to deal with violence.
In the event—because I put these views more generally and publicly than that in the autumn of last year—the Commission which the Government set up did not come out in that way. In my view the Diplock Commission was given too narrow terms of reference.
I remind the House of my letter so that I can recall a long-held view that the replacement of the Special Powers Act can only be considered in the context of a Bill of Rights. The right hon. Gentleman has explained why we have not got what he has chosen to call a charter of human rights. What we have, in Part 4, paragraph 91, of the White Paper is certain basic standards, and I notice that one of them is:
the right to protection under the law, so that freedom is not taken away or diminished by violence, oppression or intimidation by others".
There is a reminder in paragraphs 95 and 96 that the principal protection is that afforded by common and statute law and by our democratic tradition. It is today, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading that we shall be exercising our democratic tradition in questioning the executive about the exercise of its powers. The lack of legislative proposals on a Bill of Rights, a charter of human rights, not only makes is difficult to do our job today despite the detailed explanation in the context of a winding-up speech that was made by the Minister of State, but also makes it even more necessary for us to look critically at the Bill.
A major point to which the Secretary of State referred was control by Parliament. I would remind the Secretary of State that a state of emergency in this country, when the Home Secretary comes to the bar of the House, lasts only 28 days, and the Government have to renew within that period. One of the points of which we approved in the White Paper was the ending of the Special Powers Act and its replacement by legislation accountable to Parliament.
In Clause 29 it is said that the most important provisions will expire after one year unless there is parliamentary approval. In our view one year is too long. I suggest six months. It may even be, if we can consider this in greater detail, that it should be shorter, but it is not too much that the Secretary of State of the day should come twice

a year to the House to justify his stewardship, and we shall propose this in Committee.
I now come to the main clauses of the Bill, which stem from the Diplock Report. I have criticised the narrowness of the terms of reference given to the Diplock Commission, but the report is extremely valuable to us today. I must say, as someone who learned the hard way, as others did—that visits to Northern Ireland and talking to a wide variety of people are the way to educate oneself —that I was surprised to find that only two visits were made to Northern Ireland, and those by only one member of the Commission.
We are very critical of some of the clauses and we shall seek to alter them, but there is no point, in a debate of this kind, in repetition of the argument from this side of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend will be winding up from this side tonight if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, with his greater experience, he will go into this matter in detail. But I should like to indicate that on this side of the House we have our doubts.
On Clause 1, with regard to the replacement of the jury system, we shall be proposing changes. As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend will go into them in detail, but it would be most valuable for us to have more information on this matter. I get letters from all sorts and types of people in Northern Ireland. I have had one recently from a Catholic priest saying that it is impossible to get a just decision from the packed juries of Belfast, proving the point that the Secretary of State made. I think it was the same letter that went on to describe the most curious way by which juries are picked in Northern Ireland, as if those responsible had set out to pick sectarian juries.
Furthermore, looking at the brief sent to many hon. Members by the National Council for Civil Liberties, we see that they put forward the view, which I believe is very widely held in the legal profession, in favour of the maintenance of the jury system. In any event, the fact that there will be only one judge under the Government's proposal we regard as not enough of a safeguard, and we shall be making proposals in that connection.
On Clause 2, with regard to bail, we regard the period of 90 days as too long. In our view, the fundamental principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty cannot lightly be passed over.
Clause 4, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, with regard to the ad-missibility of written statements in evidence, is vaguely drawn up and the qualification
unfit by reason of his … mental condition
surely casts doubts on the condition of the person making the statement when it was originally made. On the question of written evidence being admissible unless the defendant proves that it was obtained as a result of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in view of all that we heard last year and the year before, safeguards are necessary here and as it is the clause certainly is not good enough.
Clause 6 and the onus of proof in reverse, as it were, raises an aspect which we are sure the House should look at very carefully, and we shall propose changes there.
In a general vein, we accept—we cannot do otherwise—the problem of young people in Northern Ireland. One of the things that has affected public opinion in this country more than anything else has been seeing young children hurling bricks at British troops. I constantly have letters about this. Nobody can ignore the fact that on the day of the general strike—if that is the correct name for it—some weeks ago it was the young people who stormed—if that is the right word—into a school for maladjusted children.
Such things as this force us to realise that there is a problem of young people, of Tartan gangs, for instance, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). There ought to be a searching investigation into the problem of young people before the proposals in the Bill are agreed. These problems may be similar in essence to the problems of young people all over the United Kingdom, indeed all over the western world, but heaven only knows that they show themselves in a very virulent way in Northern Ireland.
Then, although no one underestimates the difficult problem of the security forces, those parts of the Bill which refer to

powers of arrest also require investigation in depth, especially the need for extra powers for the Armed Forces. We understand the need in terms of vehicle search, going into gardens, and so on. But does the Army need general powers of arrest? Is not it better to limit them to scheduled offences? In that respect I notice in Clause 13 that extraordinary powers seem to be given to inspectors appointed under Section 53 of the Explosives Act. Any such inspector may stop any person in a public place and search him. The proposal to give such a power to an inspector appointed under that Act which in this country is operated under the aegis of the Home Office needs justification.
With regard to proscribed organisations —and this is the third or fourth time that the subject has been discussed in this House—we note and support the fact that Republican clubs are de-proscribed under the Special Powers Act. In terms of what the right hon. Gentleman said today, I presume that the order doing this comes under the urgency provisions of the temporary provisions of last year. I presume that we shall have an order on the Floor of the House under the 1½hour procedure. However I ask that interrogatively because I only just caught what the right hon. Gentleman said.
We accept paragraph 94 of the White Paper. No person or organisation can expect to be allowed to claim to act politically at one moment and then, given a favourable opportunity, to turn to violence and subversion. To be a democrat means being a democrat, and we accept that. We only repeat our desire for Sinn Fein to be able to stand in the elections, not just in the context of yesterday's electoral Bill but in the wider sense which the right hon. Gentleman spelt out today. It is important that they should be able to test their strength at the polls. In the debate on the White Paper I suggested that they managed to do so in the South—in terms of their law, it is true. But is not it possible to make the Provisional Sinn Fein clubs legal in the same sense as the Republican clubs which are the political wing? Is not it possible to do that with the Sinn Fein clubs?
There are wider issues at which we shall want to look in Committee. Is it


necessary to have proscribed organisations in the way that Schedule 2 lays down? Is not it possible to deal with those who break the law in the way with which we are concerned on an individual basis?
I have attempted to discover what some of these proscribed organisations are. I do not attempt the Irish pronunciation of Soldiers of Ireland, except that "Fianna" obviously means a group or a party. I am told that this is the traditional title for the boys' auxiliary of the IRA and it seems that there may be two sections of it corresponding to the Officials and the Provisionals. Then there is the Society of Women. Would not it be better and is not it more sensible for such organisations to be out in the open? Is it necessary for them to be proscribed following the tradition of the past 50 years? Why not deal with them on an individual basis? If a man wants to stand for election and there is evidence against him whereby he may be brought before the courts, he should be brought before the courts. The fact that he stands for election will not prevent that.
The main aim must be for Sinn Fein and others to test their support at the polls. If their support proves to be great amongst the minority community in Northern Ireland—I personally do not believe that that would be the case, but we may be due for some surprises in the election—that is a factor that we shall have to face because it will disprove what many of us have thought to the contrary in the past year or two.
With regard to the Detention of Terrorists Order which is now put into the schedule of the Bill, the Opposition are pleased that this has happened because it gives more parliamentary accountability and it gives us the chance that we did not have the last time round for detailed investigation and for amendment.
We debated this matter in December. At that time I prayed in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner that this was an improvement on the existing set-up. Since then there have been the changes that the Government will put into this Bill. The Special Powers Act as such has gone, although a major aspect of it is still in this Bill. There is the charter of human rights of which we have an outline, and that gives us new standards.
On legal matters I always hesitate to chance my arm on a view. But from talking to a large number of people in recent months I find myself on balance coming down against special courts such as they have in the South of Ireland. I have argued that this House has the right even under the European Convention of Human Rights, for example, to intern those who shoot and kill. However I believe that detention such as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, with all the safeguards and all the improvements, in essence is still internment by the executive. It is a much "better" arrangement than before. But it is not a court of law. It is not the rule of law. It is still the exercise of executive powers of a Secretary of State. In essence it is still internment, and in that light we shall have to look at these schedules.
The proceedings before the Commission and the Appeals Tribunal are private. The Secretary of State and others put forward arguments in favour of that which one can comprehend. But the trial is in private, and the Opposition believe that private trials must be looked at very carefully. Unsworn statements are permitted. I understand that some members of the Bar in Northern Ireland are concerned about the procedures followed in the tribunal. What we require is that the provisions of these extraordinary measures be looked at in order, as the National Council for Civil Liberties puts it,
… to offer the basic protection granted by the European Convention of Human Rights.
That is a yardstick by which it might be measured.
We do not know the Government's legislative proposals on the charter of human rights. The yardstick for the protection of the individual is not known. The last time round when we discussed the order the Secretary of State said that the object was to put more cases before the courts. He has said again today that, given the clauses of the Bill which we shall look at in detail, surely with these procedures there will be fewer people going before the tribunal and that the aim must be to have more people going before the courts.
It so happens that I checked the figures this morning and in his speech the right


hon. Gentleman gave even more up-to-date figures. He said that since Motor-man there had been 1,000 arrested people charged before the courts. The fundamental aim must be to end internment under whatever name it might be known. Despite the improvement, this is still the essential object of these detention powers.
I could not argue that internment should be ended tomorrow. No one with whom I have talked believes that internment could end tomorrow morning. I have views on when the ending of internment might have been attempted before. When I say "might have", I realise fully the difficulty that faces a Secretary of State. If such an attempt proved remarkably unsuccessful, the Secretary of State and his advisers would bear the burden.
It is one of the major responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman to seek to end internment as part of the political settlement. That is why it is vital to have free elections so as to find who it is that the people of Northern Ireland support.
Another major responsibility which is closely allied to internment is the move towards civilian policing. When I go to Northern Ireland I usually take the opportunity to visit an Army unit. Such units have the world's most impossible job. They carry out a rôle for which the Army was not trained. The aim must be to get to civilian policing as soon as possible. It is not the Army's rôle to be on the streets of Northern Ireland.
There are grave doubts which cannot be judged on the basis of or by the yardstick of the Charter of Human Rights. We cannot ignore the issue of violence in Northern Ireland and adopt an across-the-board approach to those politically motivated and to those who are reminiscent of The Godfather film, which some of us may have seen recently, who feel that they are above politics. A balance must be struck.
We cannot deny the Government their Second Reading, but we must work to improve the Bill in detail. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Government will provide a one-day debate on the Floor of the House to discuss the clause that will promote the ending of the death penalty in Northern

Ireland. I note that the death penalty has not been applied in Northern Ireland for some years. If it is a threat to political guerrilla warfare, it has been remarkably unsuccessful. The Government propose to treat Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom when considering the death penalty. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We welcome the opportunity to have a debate. There will be a free vote on this side of the House.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), when she spoke in the border debate—I re-read her speech a day or two ago—made a point with which I agree fully. She said that a country and a community cannot protect democracy by terror. However, a community cannot sit back and allow a civil war to erupt. That would be the result if steps were not taken against violence.
It may well be that it is true that democracy cannot be protected by tyranny, but democracy has the right to defend itself. Those who have been social democrats for the last 30 or 40 years will know what happens when that is not done. Democracy must defend itself, but it must do so through the rule of law. Democracy also has the right and the duty to put forward proposals for political change. That the right hon. Gentleman has done.
Will the Government provide the means for all shades of opinion to stand in the elections? Will the men of violence, from whatever part of the community, put themselves to the political test? If they do the Bill could be unnecessary. A week or two ago there appeared in the Sunday Times an editorial about the Bill which said:
The approval "—
that is, approval given to the Government—
can only be temporary. By August some of those 330 "—
those are the people in detention—
will have been behind the wire for two years. Are they to stay there, unconvicted, for as long as violence remains at an unacceptable level? It is understandable that the Government should attach great weight to the two sets of elections now forthcoming in Northern Ireland, and should wish to put in hand nothing that might upset them. When those are over, it will be high time to submit the problem to a more radical review.


After the elections that the right hon. Gentleman has set in train, the House must turn to the matter again. The Government will have to find the right occasion on which to make the Bill unnecessary. It is not only up to the people in this part of the United Kingdom but it is up to the people of Northern Ireland. It is to those people to whom I appeal. I appeal to the moderates, to whom we have appealed over the years, and I appeal to the men of violence. We have the right to look for statesmanship from some of them. So far there has been little sign of statesmanship, but I repeat the urgent cry for peace.
The future is up to the people of Northern Ireland in the elections. It is up to those in Northern Ireland who live by the gun. They can assure a new future for Northern Ireland. Unless they do so, the fruits of political advancement will be a long time in coming.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I welcome what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said. I welcome particularly his concluding remarks. I strongly agree with him about the jury system. The jury is a rare organism in this world. It is a mistake to equate it with democracy. There are many countries in the world which are regarded as thoroughly democratic which do not have the jury system and which could not have it. That is because a very homogeneous community is needed to support a jury system. Other democratic countries have tried it and it has failed because they do not have the necessary homogeneity in their community.
I fear that it is now clear in Northern Ireland, which is a deeply divided community, that there is not the necessary homogeneity to work the jury system. The hon. Member for Leeds, South instanced the difficulties. He referred to the packing of juries. That is perhaps a violent description.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): Selection.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Selection, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, is a better word. Undoubtedly it is there and it is bound to be there in a divided community. Although we must regret the

temporary removal of the jury when dealing with some scheduled offences, that removal has become obviously essential.
In a small divided community not only are the religious allegiances of jurymen well known, but, unfortunately, the religious allegiances of judges are also known. The judges in Northern Ireland have shown a tremendous example in putting out of their minds all thoughts of their religious allegiances. Nevertheless, it is difficult for the community to believe that. For that reason I strongly suggest that one paragraph in the excellent Diplock Report cannot be wholly supported. The report suggests that there should be trial by one judge alone. It is not fair that one judge should be both judge and jury in a serious case. That is too big a load.
Judges in Northern Ireland must go in some fear. They are very brave men. They are completely loyal to their judicial oath. They put aside all prejudice and partial affections, and all those things which we try to put aside here every day at 2.30 p.m., for five minutes, at any rate. However, the judges are known and their allegiances and religion are known.
I would therefore urge my right hon. Friend to say that, for the more serious scheduled offences—they are all pretty serious—there should be three judges. I should not like to institutionalise the allegiances of the judges, but I imagine that with three the chances of at least one being of a different faith from the other two is very high, which in itself would give confidence. Secondly, for the judges themselves, there is not the load of responsibility and inevitably of fear if three are responsible for a finding of guilty, if three are responsible for what may be very heavy sentences in politically-charged cases, as there would be if only one man had to bear the load.
The objection to this given by Lord Diplock and his colleagues in paragraph 39 strikes me as insufficient:
In criminal proceedings in particular, immediate rulings on admissibility of evidence and other matters of procedure have constantly to be made by the single judge when sitting with a jury. It would gravely inconvenience the progress of the trial and diminish the value of oral examination and cross-examination as a means of eliciting the truth if a plurality of judges had to consult together, albeit briefly, before each ruling was made.


Of course it would hold things up a bit, but the trials will be much speedier anyhow, since there will be no jury. Therefore a little more time can surely be afforded. There is no great hold-up with three judges, even though interlocutory rulings have to be made, for example in the Court of Appeal in this country.
Frequently, some objection is made that the point under discussion has not been properly raised in the notice of appeal, or something like that. Then there is a consultation among the three judges which often takes less than two minutes and they speedily resolve such an objection. Although, I suppose, a little longer might be taken in a trial of first instance, it would be trivial compared with the important considerations which I have tried to submit—namely, the greater confidence when the decision of guilty or not guilty of a serious offencs is taken by more than one person, and, second, the greater fairness to the judge and judges themselves if the load is spread.

Mr. Percy Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the objections of Lord Diplock and his colleagues to trial by a college of judges or by a plurality of judges somewhat elip-tically. What has he to say about the other objections postulated in paragraph 39, that is, first, the lack of judge power to provide in this way for trial by a number of judges, and second, the statement:
Our oral adversarial system of procedure is ill-adapted to the collegiate conduct of a trial of fact."?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The second of those problems is only an aspect of what I have been saying. I do not see why three judges cannot hear cross-examination or re-examination as well as one. In so far as that remark means anything, it merely means that there would have to be a small delay in case some objection were taken to some evidence or the usual things which my hon. and learned Friend knows occur in the trials.
The other objection is more solid, namely, that there might have to be two or three more judges. That might have to happen, and it would be a certain expense, but surely we can afford that, if these considerations are as important as I believe. I doubt whether the expense of having two or three more judges for

Northern Ireland would be any greater than the savings in jurymen's expenses over the years. I do not know but I think that the whole thing is a matter of four figures rather than five and I cannot believe that this important matter should founder on such a consideration.
There is in the Bar of Northern Ireland a considerable catchment area of high legal talent. There would be no difficulty in my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor finding the necessary judge power for this purpose. I do not believe that many more would have to be appointed. If that is so, surely it would be a good thing to do. The legal profession in Northern Ireland, in very difficult times, has shown an example of unanimity, or rather of homogeneity, which is remarkable. It must have been under great strain, because its representatives themselves have different religious allegiances. They have been entirely loyal to the system that they work and they are quite capable of producing the necessary additional judge power.
For those, among other reasons, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us some indication that he might adhere to this view. I believe very strongly that it is right.
If there were any question of the capital sentence being passed, the argument would be overwhelming. It would be impossible to conceive of one judge having to find a man guilty without a jury and then passing the capital sentence. But I regard it as almost as important even if the capital sentence is abolished. Whether it will be, I do not know, and I hope that my right hon. Friends know what they are doing. I do not want to say anything more about that today.
In any event, in a decision of murder or manslaughter, for one judge alone to make such findings seems to me far too much. I hope that no considerations of economy of a few thousand pounds a year and that no considerations that the trial might be lengthened, if even by as much as two hours, will weigh in the scales against the very important protection for the judges which the amendment that I suggest would afford.

5.27 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: To my mind, the most frightening aspect of this legislation lies not in the Bill itself


but in the reaction of organisations and the population of this country to what I consider to be the first step in the gradual erosion of their civil liberties and their traditions.
It is very strange to hear from the Government of this country, the executive, new phrases for old ideas. Suddenly, the legal traditions of this country become mere technicalities. Suddenly, it is in the interest of the law and the judicial process to talk about the protection of judges and the securing of convictions, when, in my limited understanding of the law, it is the protection of society and of the individual with which we should be concerned.
We have heard much about the Diplock Report, but Diplock is only one learned gentleman. How strange his words sound in contrast with those of Lord Justice Devlin in the 1966 revised edition of his book "Trial by Jury":
Each jury is a little parliament. … I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The one object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will and the next to overthrow or diminish Trial by Jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that Trial by Jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution. It is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.
We have not heard from the Government, and certainly not from Lord Diplock, one concrete point of evidence to show that it is necessary for this step to be taken. We have heard of packed juries. But where is the statistical evidence? How many packed juries have there been? What is the percentage of juries which have been packed one way or the other? If there have been perverse judgments, convictions or acquittals, what is the percentage? Diplock tell us that there is no evidence of perverse convictions and that evidence of perverse acquittals is rare.
Diplock provides no evidence when he continues in another part of his report to tell us that the jury system is under strain. Where is the evidence for this? He produces none of it. Yet he and the House are quite willing to accept that a jury suddenly becomes not the traditional way of maintaining the rights and protecting the liberties of people of this country but merely a technicality of the

judicial process which can be dispensed with at will.
When we move on from the question of trial by jury, the entire Bill gets progressively worse. We are told that the onus of proof will be moved from the prosecution to the defendant. How is the defendant to prove his innocence when he can be condemned out of his own mouth? He can be condemned out of his own mouth by virtue of a statement made to the police or to the Army. Unless he can prove in a court of law that such a statement resulted from torture or degrading treatment, the statement will stand in court.
Those of us who remember the Compton Report have a very poor attitude on how far the police and the Army will be allowed to go before a judge will decide that a statement was elicited by means of torture or degrading or inhumane treatment. The Bill says nothing about statements made under threat of torture. It appears that a person has actually to be tortured. If he breaks down before that occurs, he has had it. The Bill says nothing of the threat or of inducement by false promises.
Bit by bit, throughout the whole of the legislation—many hon. Members will want to elucidate even more of these points—one finds that Lord Diplock and the Government are not applying themselves to the question of the rule of law. By his own admission, Lord Diplock is applying himself to the securing of more convictions. His whole report is conviction oriented. The whole Bill is conviction oriented. In one part of his report, he actually talks about the effect on the morale of troops of seeing guilty men walking the streets. Have these guilty men escaped from a place of detention? Are they people who have been convicted in the courts and have not been held or imprisoned? If they have not, by what God-given right does Lord Diplock call them "guilty men"?
Throughout the legislation we have worked on the assumption that the population of Northern Ireland is guilty. While the House and the Government claim to believe in democracy and the rule of law, the Bill is the clearest statement of my philosophy, that there is no such thing in this country, and certainly not in mine, as democratic law.


When we cannot secure convictions under our acceptance of the rule of law, with trial by jury, with the right of a person to be regarded as innocent until he is found guilty and to cross-examine his accusers, and when we cannot put the population of Northern Ireland behind bars by that rule of law—which is a British rule and not mine—then what of respect for British traditions and respect for democracy if we proceed to change that rule of law in order to obtain convictions? It is non-existent. The law is changed so that any paratrooper or member of the Cheshire Regiment can appear in Northern Ireland and on his evidence a man can be accused and charged with the most serious criminal offence. By the time he comes to court, our military friend will be serving in Germany and no doubt it will be inconvenient to bring him back to Northern Ireland. I find it surprising that the official policy of the Labour Party on this Second Reading is to abstain on something as important as this.
As I have said, it is the first step which is being taken to erode our rights and our freedom under the law. These are being taken away by the Bill. It is a much easier step to move legislation from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom than to bring in this kind of legislation directly here. But let hon. Members take note that there is an anti-jury lobby in this country, and that the Bill strengthens its arm. We have seen the hanging lobby in this country. I do not see how this measure stops short of anything other than hanging. Are we to fill the gaols of Northern Ireland with people convicted under the methods laid down in this Bill and then have the cheek and audacity to send telegrams to Rhodesia?

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: In welcoming the Bill, and in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I should like to direct the attention of the House to the Diplock Report and to the statistics of what has been happening in Northern Ireland.
One has only to look at the figures of the assassinations, deaths and bombings

in Northern Ireland and to compare those figures with the number of persons who have been charged and convicted over the past three years, to draw the unavoidable conclusion that the ordinary systems of law in this country are not sufficient to match the campaign which has been deliberately mounted against the people of Northern Ireland by the subversive elements at work in Ulster.
A total of 772 people have been murdered in Northern Ireland.

Miss Devlin: I keep thinking about this point every time the hon. Gentleman adds to his weekly list of the dead in Northern Ireland. He continually says that 700, 770 or 775 people have been murdered in Northern Ireland. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, knowing the total figure of dead, how many of those persons were killed by the British Armed Forces and whether he still calls it murder?

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Lady wants a breakdown of the statistics, I shall give it to her. Of those who have been killed, the Army alone has lost 170 persons. In each case when a soldier has been killed —I can think of only two exceptions—the IRA has immediately put out a statement claiming responsibility for the assassination of that soldier. These deaths include some very horrible deaths. Men have been lured unarmed into a private house and made to lie down, and they have then been riddled with bullets. That is the situation with which we are dealing. That is the truth of the matter.

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the question I asked? I asked how many people the Army had killed.

Mr. McMaster: I shall continue with my speech. Not only have 170 soldiers been killed, but 33 policemen performing their duties have been killed in Northern Ireland, and four members of the reserve police, who were ordinary people trying to serve the community. In the same way, 33 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been assassinated in their own homes. Of the 772 killed, 204 have been killed as a result of explosions set off in the centre of Belfast by bombs placed there deliberately in order to cause the maximum amount of destruction. I refer the House to the two relevant passages in the Diplock


report concerning these facts. Page 9, paragraph 17 says:
In Belfast and in Londonderry the IRA terrorist groups operate from those areas which are Republican strongholds. For a long time these were 'No Go' areas into which neither the police nor the army entered. Since July 1972 the army have been able, at a cost of casualties, to maintain armed patrols in the streets, and to launch sporadic raids on premises to make arrests and to seize arms, explosives and other incriminating material. But they are not in a position to ensure the personal safety of individual citizens who reside in these areas or who have to pass regularly through them or near by. In the nature of things, it is the people who live in these areas who are most likely to have first-hand knowledge of who committed terrorist acts or planned or directed them. Yet these are the people who would put their lives, their families, their homes, at greatest risk if it were suspected by members of the terrorist organisations that they had given information to the security authorities. The fear of revenge upon 'informers' is omnipresent. It is not limited to urban areas. It extends to those who live in relative isolation in the country exposed to terrorist raids launched from across the border. It extends to all classes of society. It is not an idle or irrational fear. It is justified in fact by many well authenticated instances of intimidation, and not least by the example, familiar to all other potential witnesses, of a witness who was shot dead in his home in front of his infant child the day before he was due to give evidence on the prosecution of terrorists. Even where a terrorist crime is committed outside the more dangerous areas and in the presence of less vulnerable eyewitnesses the pervading atmosphere of fear leads them to profess their inability to identify the culprits or to give any other evidence in court which would inculpate them.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has left the Chamber because her entire speech was directed at the inference in that passage. We have seen witnesses shot in Northern Ireland. There is a witness referred to in that passage. He was an ordinary bus-driver, called Agnew, in my constituency. He made a statement to the police about a certain matter and asked the police what protection he would be given, living in an ordinary peaceful part of Belfast. The police said that they could not protect every witness and every trial.
They went away and within an hour there was a knock at his door. The little boy answered. Two men were there. They asked to speak to his father. When the father came to the door he was shot dead in front of his child. I remind the House about this although I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like

to hear the truth. We have all seen young girls taken by a group of these Republican terrorists in well-known Republican areas. Their heads are shaved and tar is poured over their bodies. Others have been shot in the legs and the knees by the IRA. It is its normal way of punishing people. Others have been shot in the back of the head. A sack is put over their head first because these brave men in the IRA do not like to look into the eyes of the men they assassinate in this cruel fashion.
So far 32 people have been assassinated in Northern Ireland this year. To the best of my knowledge there has been only one conviction for murder. It is in the face of such conditions that the ordinary rule of law cannot apply in Northern Ireland.
The terrorists seek to hide behind the ordinary rules of evidence. They wish to kill with impunity. They do not like the suggestions contained in this Bill. We can hear how they squeal. The squeals are even heard in this House from hon. Members opposite. The rule of law has broken down in Northern Ireland. The death roll is appalling. The damage to property runs into millions of pounds. I have seen homes in my constituency that have been burned and destroyed. I have seen businesses and factories razed to the ground. I know the people who have lost their jobs in Belfast as a result of this campaign.
I welcome the fact that the Government have said clearly that the first priority in dealing with the troubles in Northern Ireland is to deal with terrorism. Speaking as a lawyer I deplore the fact that we have to change the ordinary rules of evidence. But we must face the facts. Unless we deny that there is an IRA and that it does intimidate witnesses and operate in this terrorist fashion, unless we deny that it has created no-go areas which the police cannot enter—such areas as the Ardoyne—we have to take such measures. Only Army patrols, comprising soldiers who are drafted in for three or four months and who hardly know the area and the people living in it, can patrol such territory. This is the way the areas are policed.
How can ordinary detection take place in these conditions? How can witnesses be sure that if they give evidence they will not be attacked in their homes by terrorists? They have been attacked. How can jurymen be sure that they will


not be subject to intimidation? There is evidence of perverse judgments in Northern Ireland. It is because of this that the rules dealing with trial by jury and the ordinary rules of evidence entitling a man to face his accusers have had to be waived.
Conditions in Ulster since July 1969 have deteriorated sharply. All the steps that have been taken, all the measures that have been devised to meet the grievances of the terrorist organisations of the Republican Party, have led only to mounting violence and a growing death roll. I told the House that, since October 1968, 170 soldiers have been shot. It is frightening to realise that of these, 115 have died since April 1972. That is a little over a year. During that year this Parliament has been totally responsible for security in Northern Ireland.
Because of the extension of this deliberate campaign of terrorism, mounted for a political end by a Republican minority which seeks to impose its will on the majority in Ulster and even upon this House—because of this vicious and seditious threat—we must legislate in this way. The result of the terror has been to create fear. This is so in my own constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He knows that people living in that area, in New Lodge Road, in Victoria Barracks, would not come forward to give evidence in any normal court of law against people whom they know to have firearms and to be engaging in terrorist activities.
The hon. Member spoke last night of the first soldier to be shot in the area, Gunner Curtis. He knows that these men and women dare not give evidence. It is more than their lives, the lives of their wives and children and the safety of their homes are worth. The effect of fear on the rules of evidence, on the minds not only of witnesses but of a jury, must be taken into account. We have a duty to protect the civil rights of the minority but we also have a duty to protect the civil rights of innocent victims. There have been 772 such people. If measures such as this had been taken three years ago, would the death roll have been so high today?
It is the responsibility of this House to restore law and order in Northern Ireland, to bring the shooting and killing to an end, and to arrest and convict the terrorists. If this is the way to do it, I suggest that it should be accepted by this House as part of the ordinary responsibility of Members of Parliament.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am as passionately concerned as is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) to ensure that the rule of law and respect for the legal process returns in Northern Ireland. But if it is to return and to endure it is essential that those who come in contact with the legal process, the citizens of Northern Ireland as a whole, respect the fairness and im partiality of the criminal legal process. That seems self-evident. However, I fear that, far from the Bill assisting in that direction, it will put it considerably in jeopardy. I believe that it will go a long way to undoing some of the sensible, fundamental constitutional changes that were debated yesterday and embodied in the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill, and many of which were contained in the White Paper.
There should be no doubts about what the Bill seeks to do. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I am astonished at the lightness with which lawyers and others have regarded the changes in the Bill. We are not tinkering around with minor evidenciary points, we are not altering some minor points of detail or technical rules of evidence. We are altering the whole fundamental criminal process in Northern Ireland for a whole range of substantial offences which, rightly, carry heavy penalties.
I should have thought that before we endorsed such a fundamental change there would be the strongest possible evidence either in the Diplock Report, which recommends the changes, or brought forward by the Secretary of State to substantiate them. I believe that the only acceptable evidence to this House would be evidence that showed that the jury system had of itself been the cause or a considerable cause of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland, that its maintenance would contribute to the continuance of terrorism, or would


be a considerable impediment to the containment of terrorism which all of us want. No such evidence has been brought forward today and none is even suggested in the Diplock Report. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster rightly pointed out, Lord Diplock, in Chapter 5, says:
It is fair to say that we have not had our attention drawn to complaints of convictions that were plainly perverse and complaints of acquittals which were plainly perverse are rare.
How can that statement be used as a basis for abolishing the jury system in Northern Ireland, even if only temporarily?

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a persuasive argument on that point on the evidence so far, although I am fairly sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to bring forward examples where decisions by juries have been perverse. Does he concede that it is also a reasonable argument to point to the inability to bring cases at all because of witnesses being intimidated and the obvious fact that convictions might be impossible if the jury system were continued?

Mr. Davidson: Any point is reasonable in the context of Northern Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is suggesting that witnesses are or might be intimidated. He may be right.
How would the abolition of the jury system lessen the prospect of witnesses being intimidated? If they are intimidated sufficiently to cause them not to want to attend a trial before a jury, they are not likely to be less or more fearful, or their feelings will not be any different, if they appear in court before a single judge. That is not a very good argument.

Captain Orr: What about the intimidation of juries?

Mr. Davidson: There is no evidence of intimidation of juries. If there is substantial evidence that juries have been intimidated, that is a different matter. However, there is nothing in the Diplock Report which suggests that juries have been intimidated. Witnesses have been intimidated, and that problem will remain in many respects.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster quoted the excellent, ringing passage from

Lord Devlin which I should have liked to quote, so I will not do so. At the end of his book Lord Devlin refers to a quotation from Blackstone, which reads:
inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern.
I am extremely worried that we should abolish something as sacred as the jury system. It may be said that we are to abolish it for only 12 months and then we shall come back to this House, but such things have a habit of remaining permanently abolished. Once a precedent is set it can be used in other parts of the country. I should hate to witness the time when a future Attorney-General— it certainly will not be the present Attorney-General or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones)—says, "Trial by a single judge has worked reasonably well in Northern Ireland, so let us get rid of the jury system here." This is not a fantasy. It could happen.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to convince the House that the jury system is to be abolished entirely in Northern Ireland and may be abolished in this country. Is he aware that this is an Emergency Provisions Bill dealing with terrorists and that the normal jury system for ordinary crimes will still operate in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Davidson: I am of course aware of that. I have said that the Secretary of State has stated that it is being temporarily abolished, in the main for terrorist offences.
As lawyers, many of us have gone to countries all over the world to sit in trials as observers. Usually we have come back and made very critical reports about the legal system in those countries and the way in which fundamental civil liberties and the rights of the subject have been eroded and destroyed. I need not instance any particular countries, for the list is legion.
Over and over again, the excuse such countries give for abolishing civil liberties is that a terrorist situation exists. Over and over again we as lawyers, representing as we do the most sophisticated


and respected legal system in the world, have been able to say that even in the context of Northern Ireland people are brought to trial before the ordinary courts of the land and that those trials are held openly and publicly. We shall no longer be able to say that. When we sit in and observe trials in some of these countries, our position and the respect in which British law is held in those countries will be severely diminished and hampered.
The Secretary of State said that many of the clauses in the Bill are unpalatable in a democracy. He is absolutely right. He cannot say in the same breath that if those statements were obtained as a result of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, that alters the laws of evidence in a technical sense only.
What will be considered by this single judge as a statement obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment? Does this mean that in future statements obtained as a result of bribes, inducements or threats must be admissible? On any reading of the Bill, I fear that one must come to that conclusion. Does this mean that in future the police can say, "If you make a statement we shall get you bail", or, "If you make a statement you can be released", or, "If you make a statement you can see your lawyer"? That is not merely a change in technical rules. It is a complete alteration in the rules of evidence which have worked in this country for years and years. It was not even suggested by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which suggested practically everything else, if I may say so, and which has rightly been rejected by the Bar Council and most other legal bodies in the country.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has very carefully and seriously been destroying all the suggestions put forward in the Bill.
Will he give us his suggestions to deal with the mounting campaign of terrorism that is causing so much death and destruction in Northern Ireland? How would he bring about convictions against these people?

Mr. Davidson: With great respect, it is not for me to suggest that. It is no excuse for someone to say, "Of course, the Bill is not perfect, but may I remind

people that we could introduce something far worse." That is no justification for the Bill.
I do not suggest for one moment that the same legal niceties existing in this country could possibly prevail in Northern Ireland. In the situation existing in Northern Ireland, with the violence and killings which all of us condemn, obviously the police and troops must be given some sort of emergency powers and greater power of arrest than exists in this country. But that does not mean that we can willy-nilly abolish the jury system. It does not mean that we can capriciously turn our backs on the basic protection which the law of evidence gives to people in this country.
In Committee, there will be time to go through the Bill clause by clause. Not one but every clause in the Bill—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), opening the debate for the Opposition, gave objections to the clauses—has some serious and fundamental objections from the civil liberty aspect.
I speak as someone who both abhors what has taken place in Northern Ireland as much as anybody and regards the job of the troops in Northern Ireland as intolerable. None the less, even in the context of Northern Ireland I do not think we can permit enactment of the Bill.

6.06 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: The Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to the fact that the Bill results from the Diplock Report. I add my congratulations to the analysis made by that commission. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the report. It throws an arc light on the confrontation between a democratic government and a terrorist regime and is an object lesson for other governments who have not yet experienced this kind of trouble.
I wish to raise three matters. The first is internment, the second the treatment of young terrorists and the third the announcement about the capital penalty just made by my right hon. Friend.
The terms of reference of the Diplock Commission were that it should consider
means other than internment, of dealing with individuals involved in terrorist activities.


But Diplock, in spite of this, is in my view the best case yet put forward for the arguments advocated for internment, at any rate in present conditions.
At that time, I supported internment. I advocated it before it happened. We should remind ourselves that it had been successful in the 1960-64 campaign. The reason we had to introduce internment— and I know Opposition Members are continually arguing against this—is that the normal course of law had broken down and that we had to find a substitute. As we read in the report, it was impossible to obtain witnesses, to rely on juries and to protect magistrates and judges. This was caused entirely through intimidation, as the Diplock report makes clear.
The report has been quoted by some of my hon. Friends but one quotation as to the fear of revenge on informers is omnificent and strikes the sharpest chord. The effect on Resident Magistrates is illustrated on page 23 of the report:
Resident Magistrates sitting in the same court day after day are in the front line of danger among the judiciary. Of the four RMs who sit in Belfast, one has been shot and very seriously wounded.
One cannot deny these facts which are made clear in the report. Yet in all our debates in the House on internment, Members on the other side of the House are continually denying that intimidation exists.
Schedule 1 sets out in a clear form the stages in the revised procedure for internment. I believe that the procedure contains real safeguards for the accused.
There is one disappointment to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the case of the "special category" prisoners, a class created in May 1972. These special category prisoners have used their position in a scandalous way and scandalous abuses have taken place. Prisoners have only to make a simple statement at the time they go before the court that they do not recognise it to be given a political category akin to that of a prisoner of war.
In the camps, in Crumlin Gaol and in Long Kesh they ape the Colditz Story. Escape tunnels are built. A successful escape took place through one of these tunnels, which was 40 yards long. The prisoners practise drill, weapon training and section training and a fiercesome

armoury of model weapons—and some more lethal weapons—ammunition, training manuals, and so on, have been seized.
I heard it said by a company officer from the battalion responsible for looking after Crumlin Gaol that inside the gaol was
a formed body of men actually training for war.
Through intimidation and lack of training to deal with the situation the prison staff were "thoroughly demoralised", yet the morale of the special category prisoners "was extremely high". I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this matter some consideration.
Clauses 7 and 8 are of the utmost importance in dealing with young terrorists. One of the most tragic results of this situation is the involvement of youth. The evil of this brand of terrorism is shown by the fact that there have been mass arrests of adult terrorists, with the Provisional battalions decimated, and yet terrorism has not vanished. It has simply spread down to the youngsters. The Diplock Report mentions the use of children as a "living screen" which moves forward, drawing the troops out so that the snipers can open fire. We know that this has happened for a long time. But what has not been happening—what is quite new—is the use of 14-year-olds as snipers, in possession of guns.
When this battle is won, as it must be, we shall be left with a dreadful legacy. The way in which we deal with young offenders, particularly those under the age of 17, is of crucial importance. Chapter 9 of the Diplock Report makes terrifying reading. Of course, we were recently made aware of the involvement of youth, and I have seen it myself in the Creggan Estate, where gangs of children have gone out hunting military patrols and thrown stones at them. On Sundays they go to the camp at the top of the hill, in a band of 400 to 500, and throw stones at the camp. That is a difficult situation to deal with.
The Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 contains power to provide institutions, but we learn from the Diplock Report that none of these institutions has been built, or is available. Only two schools existed at the time of writing. They were open


to people under the age of 17. The schools were divided along sectarian lines. The Diplock Report makes clear, however, that the only secure alternative is prison, and we know the disadvantages of that for young offenders. The existing two schools were not secure and there was nothing to prevent young people from absconding. I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking action on this aspect. We would like to hear a little more about this when my right hon. and learned Friend winds up.
My right hon. Friend gave as his reasons for the change on the capital penalty issue the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) sought to introduce and the result of the vote on it. I hope that it did not escape my right hon. Friend's notice that about two-thirds of Conservative Members were in favour of the Bill. The Diplock Report says in chapter 3, paragraph 4, that it is not the commission's job to recommend changes in the criminal law; this would be a longer job and would need much further consideration, and it should be considered by a much broader based body. I ask my right hon. Friend why, if the change is envisaged, it is not given to a broader-based body to make a proper and thorough study. Is it right that the change should be made in an emergency Bill of this sort and not in the major constitutional Bill which, as the White Paper makes clear, and which my right hon. Friend made clear in his speech, will deal with fundamental matters of law and order?
This is not the occasion for this change, if it is envisaged. Should not the people of Northern Ireland, in their new Assembly, be given the chance to vote on this matter? The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which is the key Act in this case, mentions the murder of "a person in service of the Crown". That could be taken to mean a police officer, a prison officer or a member of the Armed Forces. I remind the House once again of the number of murders of this category of person which have taken place since the emergency started in 1969. Up to 31st March this year, the Army had had 166 men killed; the UDR had had 34 men killed and the

RUC had had 38 men killed. That makes a total of 238. Is it right to remove this basic protection from the Armed Forces, the RUC, the UDR, and the prison service? No one knows the extent to which capital punishment works, or does not work, as a protection, but these people feel that it is a basic protection for them.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry to have come in late on my hon. Friend's speech. I have said that I will reserve all my comments until we debate the clause concerned. I would not wish my hon. Friend to make any presumptions about anyone's views on the matter until we have debated the clause.

Mr. Mather: I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention. I have nothing more to go upon than what my right hon. Friend announced in the House. I hope that he will read the earlier part of my speech on this point.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Recently there was the murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland. A person was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. He was reprieved by the Secretary of State. I do not recall the hon. Member or any of his hon. Friends raising any public objection to that reprieve. Will he explain that?

Mr. Mather: That was the exercise of the prerogative by my right hon. Friend. I do not believe that it is for individual hon. Members to interfere in that process. We may feel that it was not right; we may feel that it was correct. The point is that the prisoner did not know until the last minute whether or not he would suffer the death penalty. That is the deterrent.
To continue with my original train of thought, I would not have raised the question of morale had not this whole matter been raised by my right hon. Friend. It would have been quite simple to go ahead with the Bill as it exists, but the question having been raised by my right hon. Friend, I feel that I must mention the subject of the morale of the security forces. Morale is a very delicate matter. It has to be built up over a long period. We should be extremely careful not to do anything to damage it.
I believe that the question of the categories in the Criminal Justice Act, 1966,


covering servants of the Crown, ought to be something for which the Government accept responsibility. I do not believe it is right that the conscience of private Members—which one respects—is a proper basis for legislation of this kind. We ought also to bear in mind public opinion and the anxieties which public opinion now feels about the increase in crimes of violence, murder and, in particular, terrorism. This new dimension, this advent of terrorism, is part of the reason for the tremendously renewed interest in the question of capital punishment for terrorism which has occurred not only in Northern Ireland but over here, as we have seen at Aldershot, the Old Bailey and Whitehall.
There are demands for tougher action against terrorism, but if this free vote is successful it will be claimed that we have made it weaker. It is recognised that there is a gap between this House and public opinion, and if this free vote is carried we shall widen the gap. We know that at times there are political difficulties in using these powers, but I beg my right hon. Friend at least to keep these powers in reserve. Finally, I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) when he said he hoped the Government knew what they were doing.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Graham Tope: I hope the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks to closely. I listened to them with great interest and would only say that I do not believe that depriving a man of his liberty without trial is ever justified. I am positive that in Northern Ireland the previous period when internment was in force was disastrous. Nor do I believe that capital punishment, particularly in the circumstances to which the hon. Member referred, is a deterrent—but we shall have an opportunity to debate that question more fully later.
I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). We have to consider the Bill in a wider context, and in the light of trying to create a social climate in Northern Ireland which might eventually lead to a just and lasting peace in the Province. I am sure hon. Mem-

bers on both sides of the House deeply regret the circumstances which have necessitated a Bill such as this coming before the House. For those of us who are concerned with questions of civil liberties it raises many issues of conscience, and there are many aspects of the Bill which are difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
I recognise that exceptional circum-stances, such as those presently prevailing in Northern Ireland, require exceptional measures. We cannot consider these measures in the light of conditions prevailing in this part of the United Kingdom. Certainly, I accept that we need exceptional measures in Northern Ireland, so we may need a Bill of this kind. Nevertheless, in view of that, I believe that we must take great care to guard against the danger of over-reacting to the situation and giving the Executive powers beyond those which are needed to deal with this difficult situation.
I welcome, as I am sure many hon. Members do, the repeal of the Special Powers Act—a step called for by the Liberal Party for many years, and by many other hon. Members. I recognise that the Bill is an improvement—perhaps a great improvement—on that Act. Nevertheless, there are many parts of it which go further than is necessary, and which make me feel very unhappy. Time prevents my going through them in detail but there are a few to which I want to make particular reference.
One is the question of proscribed organisations, referred to earlier in the debate. I recognise the difficulties inherent in dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland and the political difficulties which are faced every day by the Secretary of State in trying to make decisions on these matters. I find it difficult to see what is achieved by banning organisations. To me it seems that the activities of members of those organisations are wrong, and illegal, and it is those activities which should be proscribed. However, I accept that there may be good reasons for proscribing such bodies as the IRA and the UVF, which are organised for violence. But I feel a distinction should be drawn— difficult as it often is—between bodies which are organised for violence and those which are organised for political purposes to express political views. I recognise that


many may belong to both kinds. Nevertheless, I feel it is wrong to proscribe someone for the political views he holds and the political organisations he joins.
In that context, I very much hope that the Government will see their way clear to removing the barriers which effectively prevent members of Sinn Fein openly standing as candidates in the forthcoming elections, so that they can stand if they wish to do so and we can test the support, or lack of it, which their policies have amongst the people of Northern Ireland.
In his concluding speech the right hon. and learned Attorney-General may be able to refer to this. If not, the Secretary of State may be able to comment at a later date, as he said he might.
I now turn to Clause 4, relating to the admission of written statements. I have many grave misgivings about this provision. I should feel happier if statements were required to be made before a magistrate rather than a police officer. A provision should not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. Rightly or wrongly, many people in Northern Ireland—particularly members of the minority community—do not have great confidence in the RUC or, sadly, the security forces. If this measure, about which I have very grave misgivings, is to succeed it must be seen to be fair. One step which might help would be for written statements to be made before a magistrate rather than a constable. I hope, too, that in his closing speech the Attorney-General will be able to give an indication of what he understands the words "reasonable steps" to mean, as mentioned in Clause 4(c). I am not sure what those words mean in that context.
I find Clause 5 equally objectionable. I would find it acceptable only if admissions were made before a magistrate rather than before police officers. Other hon. Members have referred to the problems of subsection (2) in relation to just what "torture" and "inhuman treatment" are, and the fact that it does not deal with threats or implied threats which might be made.
Clause 9(4) deals with finger-printing and photographing suspects. This would be seen to be fairer if it were done only by order of a magistrate rather than by order of a police officer. I also wish to

see a greater safeguard against the use of what is termed "reasonable force". Any action under subsection (4) should be undertaken in the presence of a solicitor or some other impartial observer, so that it may be seen to be fair.
Clause 6 deals with the possession of arms and proscribed articles. I find it totally unacceptable. It presumes that the defendant is guilty unless he can prove his innocence. That goes against the basic tenet of British law. It is wide open to abuse and to the conviction of innocent people. It is quite wrong. In many ways, it is an invitation to one side—if I may use that expression—to plant arms or proscribed articles on the other side and then denounce the people concerned, when the onus will be on those denounced to prove their innocence.
We Liberals are in favour of much stricter arms control. I do not believe that Clause 6 is the way to achieve it. The onus should be on the prosecution to prove the link between the defendant and the proscribed article—to prove that the article was not planted or was not involved by accident because the person happened to be on premises in which he was unaware that there was a machine gun hidden under the bed. The onus of proof must be on the prosecution. It should not be on the defendant to prove his innocence.
Clause 2 imposes severe restrictions on the granting of bail. I recognise that there are circumstances particular to Northern Ireland which make the situation very difficult, but I believe that the provisions of subsection (2) are quite enough and that subsection (3) goes too far.
Another aspect which concerns me is the possible interpretation of Clause 19, dealing with the collecting of information. I am sure that it is not the object of the clause, but it might be interpreted as restricting some of the freedom of the Press in Northern Ireland to conduct investigations into the activities of the security forces and the police. This could be a very retrogressive step. Here again the onus of proof should not be on the defendant, as it is in the clause as drafted.
Again, Schedule 1 provides that both the detainee and his representative may be excluded from the hearing. This goes


much too far. I accept, reluctantly, that there may be occasions when the detainee himself should be excluded but, again so that the process is seen to be fair, his legal representative should be allowed to be present throughout the hearing.
I am concerned, as we all are, that the Government should have the necessary powers to deal with the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said recently, we feel that the Secretary of State has an exceptionally difficult job and that he has performed his duties extremely well. However, I have to make these reservations about the Bill. I shall listen with great interest to the Attorney-General, but unless he can reassure me on a number of points, some of which I have mentioned, I will find it difficult to support the Bill.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope) has a distaste for detention. Every right-thinking person in the country would say that it should be done away with, but one is living in cloud-cuckoo land if one thinks that we can get rid of it in Northern Ireland at the present time. In Chapter 4 of its Report, the Diplock Commission states, in paragraph 27:
We are thus driven inescapably to the conclusion that until the current terrorism by the extremist organisations of both factions in Northern Ireland can be eradicated, there will continue to be some dangerous terrorists against whom it will not be possible to obtain convictions by any form of criminal trial which we regard as appropriate to a court of law; and these will include many of those who plan and organise terrorist acts by other members of the organisation in which they take no firsthand part themselves. We are also driven inescapably to the conclusion that so long as these remain at liberty to operate in Northern Ireland, it will not be possible to find witnesses prepared to testify against them in the criminal courts, except those serving in the army or the police, for whom effective protection can be provided.
That is the background against which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to introduce the Bill. I know that it was no pleasure to him.
There is an old Irish expression, "The birds are coming home to roost." The troubles of Northern Ireland are coming home to roost on the benches of this Chamber. For many years we have had sporadic terrorism. When the Northern

Ireland Government were in existence they were castigated right, left and centre because of the Special Powers Act, but when all else has been tried and everything has failed, we come round to this new Bill which, by any standards, will give the security authorities ample power to deal with the terrorism which now exists.
I shall be very happy when the day arrives when such measures are no longer necessary. I am sure that everyone agrees with that. But while a state of terrorism exists in Northern Ireland we have to enact measures to combat it. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke of British law being respected throughout the world. He will no doubt recall that special measures have been taken in the Republic of Ireland. Even before the latest measures were taken, there was the case, in 1957, of Gerry Lawless, who took his case to the European Court of Human Rights. It is interesting to note that on that occasion the court said:
Considering, in the Judgment of the Court, that in 1957 the application of the ordinary law had proved unable to check the growing danger which threatened the Republic of Ireland; the ordinary criminal or even the Special Criminal Courts or Military Courts, could not suffice to restore peace and order; in particular the amassing of the necessary evidence to convict persons involved in the activities of the IRA and its splinter groups …
That, too, is part of the background of the Bill.
When all is said and done, I hope that a large measure of support will be given to my right hon. Friend, although amendments will doubtless be moved later. We must realise that if we do not win the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland it will have to be fought again in this country. Every right-thinking person, whatever his political beliefs, must agree that no progress can be made in any country where terrorists are in operation. The terrorists are out to destroy the rule of law and the peace and prosperity of the country in which they operate. It cannot be said that the Bill contains no deterrent. Of course there is a deterrent. If a person knows that he is likely to be caught and convicted for an offence he will think twice before he commits it. In the present situation, people commit offences knowing well that there is not


the slightest chance of their being challenged or caught.
I wish my right hon. Friend every success in this measure. I hope that before long the security forces will have brought the situation under control, so that the emergency powers we are passing this afternoon will no longer be necessary.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I am vehemently opposed to the Bill. I do not believe that it will contribute in any way to bringing peace to Northern Ireland, or to ending the violence there. Legislation of this type is counter-productive. I, and thousands of my constituents, see the Bill as replacing the existing special powers by an even more dangerous form of special powers. I can see no necessity for a Bill of this type.
From reading the Diplock Report and the Bill one gains the impression that Mr. Justice Diplock and those who sat with him had one thing only in mind—how to secure more convictions. That is understandable, but it is not wholly defensible. In its anxiety to secure more convictions the commission is taking away from innocent persons the protection which they now have under the law. The present system in Northern Ireland, with all its imperfections, is better than that which is suggested in the Bill.
I see no reason for the abolition of the jury system. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the Diplock Report contains no reference to any case in which the jury brought in a perverse verdict. During the past few weeks, the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the security forces are having unprecedented success in their attempts to arrest terrorists and bring them before the law. Why, therefore, is it necessary to abolish the system of trial by jury?
The system of trial by jury in this part of the world has taken centuries to build up. It is cherished, and it should not lightly be abandoned. Once we do away with it in Northern Ireland for scheduled offences, it will be much easier to do away with it in other parts of the United Kingdom. The precedent will have been created, and once it has been created it will be easily extended.

Mr. Mather: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the jury system in Northern Ireland is being continued for offences other than scheduled offences?

Mr. Fitt: Yes, but by taking away the jury system for scheduled offences one is inserting the thin end of the wedge. If that system can be taken away for scheduled offences it can be taken away for other offences.
I am not a lawyer, and I claim no legal knowledge, but under the present system the jury listens to the evidence given against the accused person and in his summing up the judge puts that evidence impartially to the jury. If a judge makes a mistake in summing up and the accused person is found guilty, an appeal can be lodged on the ground that the judge has made a wrong assessment in his summing up and has had to put that assessment on paper. In thousands of cases, the decision of the court has been appealed against successful, because the judge has had to commit his thoughts to paper in his summing up to the jury.
If this legislation goes through no one will know what motivated the thinking of the judge. He will no longer have to explain his thoughts to anyone. All he has to say is that he is satisfied by the evidence that the accused person is guilty. There is no appeal, because the judge does not have to give reasons for finding the person guilty. He does not have to sum up for the benefit of the jury. A great deal of responsibility is thereby cast on the judge.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a valid point when he asked the Secretary of State how many verdicts had been given in respect of which there was an element of doubt in the mind of the Secretary of State that the jury was biased one way or the other.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how many people have been given bail by the courts, and how many have absconded? It would be helpful to have those figures at our disposal during the debate, so that we may refer to them.
Clause 1 is the most important clause. It takes away from an accused person the right to trial by jury. Even under the present system some strange verdicts have been handed out by the Northern Ireland courts. Yesterday afternoon, a constituent of mine was tried by a judge


and jury on an arms charge. After all the evidence had been heard he was found not guilty. Before he had the opportunity to leave the court after that verdict he was arrested by the Special Branch, and is now undergoing interrogation at Castlereagh. I have no doubt that he will be sent to Long Kesh. What is the use of having a court in the first place if, after 12 jurymen find a person not guilty on the evidence, that person is arrested by the Special Branch and detained at Long Kesh? Those powers of detention and internment are continued in this legislation. If the security forces cannot get the accused person one way they will certainly get him the other way.
How can the Secretary of State believe that this legislation will do anything to de-escalatc the tension in Northern Ireland? People do not understand the law. All they know is that a son, husband or brother has been acquitted by a judge and jury and is subsequently arrested and has to suffer detention in the internment camp. The Secretary of State will have to justify his proposals much more thoroughly before he can hope to satisfy our strong objections.
Clause 4 makes hearsay evidence admissible. Anyone will be able to write to the police or to the security forces and that letter will eventually get to the judge. The writer of the letter will be able to provide that evidence as an informer, but he will not appear before the court. In British law it is understood that those defending the accused have the right to cross-examine those making the charges, but here we have an entirely new concept, in which written evidence will be admissible without anyone knowing who the accuser is, or where he got his evidence.
If the courts that are to be set up under this legislation are anything like those now operating at Long Kesh, they certainly will not be able to be called courts in the ordinary sense of the term, because those now operating with commissioners are special courts. People who have appeared before them have not been able to see their accusers. The accusers have sat behind a curtain. Many eminent members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland are no longer prepared to be subjected to the indignity of searches when making cases before commissioners without knowing the identity of the

accusers. In a very few days, or at most a few weeks, the Attorney-General will find that strong objections are raised by members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland about this.
A restriction is to be put on judges in Northern Ireland in relation to the circumstances in which they will be permitted to grant bail. I hold no brief for judges in Northern Ireland—I do not say that they have never made mistakes and are completely infallible—but I have yet to hear why such restrictions should be placed on them. I believe the Diplock Report said that the morale of the security forces was lowered when they saw a person allowed to go about in the streets on bail. That is apparently the reason why this restriction has been written into the Bill. The security forces should be prepared to accept what everyone else is prepared to accept—that an accused man is innocent until he is proved guilty—whether or not they object to his being able to walk freely in the streets.
Clauses 9 and 10 are almost an exact repetition of the most offensive and obnoxious sections of the Special Powers Act. It is no good telling the people of Northern Ireland that the hated and oppressive Special Powers Act has gone and then embodying the exact terms of that legislation in another form. In Northern Ireland it means the same, and is as obnoxious and as undesirable.
Clause 11 deals with the Army's powers of search and arrest. I do not think anyone in the House would claim that the ordinary British soldier is a supreme diplomat, particularly in view of some of the actions which have taken place in Belfast in the past two or three weeks. If such powers are to be given to ordinary members of the security forces it should be remembered that they have absolutely no training in the use of those powers. We are told that they will be able to arrest a person on suspicion, but who is to apply a test to that member of the security forces and to ask him, "Why do you suspect this person of being engaged in the commission of an offence?".
One soldier will have a different way of considering an individual than will another soldier. We are dealing with men who are not diplomats. I admit that they are doing an almost impossible job, but in putting this onus upon them we are


giving them a privilege—if it can be called a privilege—which can be abused. The more it is abused and the more they use the power of indiscriminate arresting and searching in the streets of Northern Ireland, the more difficult it will be to bring about any political settlement of the problems which affect that country.
A fundamental change is proposed regarding the onus of proof. Nothing like this has ever happened before in the British judicial system. A case was illustrated to me this afternoon. It concerned a public house in the city of Belfast. If a gunman went there and, hearing that the security forces were coming into the area to carry out a search, planted a revolver under a seat in the bar and the security forces carried out a search and found that revolver, that publican would have to prove that he did not possess the revolver. How could he prove that? If a charge was made and he was brought before a court, the 12 men of the jury, seeing the publican before them, would probably believe him in all the circumstances. He might be arrested as soon as he had been acquitted and then detained. I cannot see why the onus of proof should be placed on persons in such circumstances. If it is applied as proposed in the Bill, many people who are not involved in the campaign of violence in Northern Ireland will find themselves brought before a single judge who will be judge, jury and executioner.

Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Member saying that these men with legal experience who are appointed to try these cases would not be able to listen to the explanation given by the publican and discover that the gun was found in a public part of the public house? Will they not listen to the explanation and form a much better, more rational and sensible verdict than would a panel of jurymen who, in Northern Ireland, may be frightened men? The hon. Member must admit that people in Northern Ireland are frightened. If the gun had been left in circumstances in which they were affected by fear in their verdict they would not make good judges of fact. I ask the hon. Member to bear this in mind and to disregard the fear which permeates all levels of society in Northern Ireland, rather than to suggest that a jury

is better than a legally trained person for deciding questions of fact.

Mr. Fitt: I believe it would be as easy to intimidate a judge as to intimidate a jury, because one would then have to intimidate only one person rather than 12. There may be a different rate for the job.

Rev. Ian Paisley: is not the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) aware that under the provisions of Clause 6 the judge would not make the decision which the hon. Member has suggested he would make? The clause provides that
Where a person is charged with possessing a proscribed article in such circumstances as to constitute an offence to which this section applies and it is proved that at the time of the alleged offence—
(a) he and that article were both present …
that person may not know anything about it, or he may say that he lives in a room where it was present and
 the court may accept the fact proved …".
That is the nub of the situation.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has put my case better than I could, and in so doing has eloquently answered the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). In those circumstances the individual will have to prove that he did not have the firearm, or whatever was the implement listed in the schedule of offences.
As I see the situation, this measure will be a further instalment of the coercive and repressive legislation which we have had throughout Ireland's history, particularly the history of Northern Ireland. This legislation will be no more successful than all the other legislation has been. Indeed, it will be as great a failure as all the other legislation because it contains the most obnoxious features of the Special Powers Act. It still allows the Secretary of State to retain the power of detention—or, under another name, internment.
It is almost two years since the people of Northern Ireland first experienced internment—namely, August 1971. Married men have been taken away from their families without being charged with a specific offence, except one that has been manufactured by the Special Branch


following action by an informer. Nobody should be behind bars or in detention in Northern Ireland purely and simply on the evidence of an informer. More often than not the informer has been paid. It is a condemnation of so-called British justice that citizens of Northern Ireland have been and are being incarcerated in detention merely because an informer has been paid to give evidence against them.
I recognise that in the Northern Ireland situation steps must be taken to try to curtail the campaign of violence. I have never supported those engaged in the campaign of violence which has raged in Northern Ireland over the past two or three years. But what is clear is that this type of legislation is not the way to tackle the problem. If we pass this legislation, it will be a recipe for further community violence in Northern Ireland.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I wish to take up one issue with him. I have sympathy with what he said in connection with the fact that the right in the United Kingdom to trial by jury is a right which we should not lightly give up. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that this right has been highly valued by people in this country. That is true. Trial by jury has its roots in the history of the British people. Those roots go deep, they touch the very bedrock of liberty, and they cannot be interfered with unless there is full justification for such action. I believe that the right to trial by jury is a guarantee against any Government of this country abusing their powers to deprive wrongly any person of his or her liberty. I regard this—and I am sure that most people in this country would agree —as one of the precious privileges of British democracy.
Taking all this into account, and giving it the fullest weight which it deserves, I recognise that before interfering with that right there must be very exceptional and grave reasons for touching the privilege of right to trial by jury. I do not pretend to be an authority on Northern Ireland, but from what I have read—and in a limited sense from what I have seen in Northern Ireland—I take the view

which has been expressed by Lord Diplock and his Commission that the acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland have chilled witnesses into silence and in some cases have provoked perverse verdicts by juries. It is difficult, if not impossible, to analyse the matter statistically. One cannot say with any certainty that a jury has come to a perverse verdict, because one does not know what goes on in the jury room and one does not know how a jury reaches its verdict.

Miss Devlin: I have often heard hon. Members on the Government benches arguing for the abolition of juries on the grounds of intimidation of witnesses. Evidence of intimidation of witnesses relates to a different matter because it involves procuring a charge, whereas a jury is involved in procuring a conviction or an acquittal. Therefore, it is misleading—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) does not intend to mislead —in outlining a case for the abolition of juries to argue the case as it affects witnesses. Lord Diplock said in his report that he was not given one single case of a perverse conviction in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gardner: I recognise the distinction between intimidation of witnesses and the perversity which a jury might demonstrate by its verdict. I have conceded the difficulty of analysing or proving the case statistically in terms of how great that perversity is and how often it occurs. I am inclined to accept the conclusion of the Diplock Commission on this aspect. If I did not accept its conclusion—if I did not believe that there were exceptional and grave reasons for temporarily supend-ing the use of the jury—I would be wholly opposed to this part of the Bill.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he doubts whether it could be proved that there is perversity among juries in bringing in verdicts? I have always understood that where there is doubt, a jury is entitled to take it into consideration in coming to a decision. How can it be said on the one hand that there may be a doubt when on the other hand that argument is used to arrive at the conclusion that the situation justifies doing away with trial by jury?

Mr. Gardner: What I do not doubt is that prejudice exists in certain sections of the population in Northern Ireland. It affects the minds of potential jurors and makes many of the verdicts unsafe, and frequently unjust. I accept Lord Diplock's view as a cogent one—a view on which this House can act. If we accept that view, we must look at the matter in a different way and in a different light—

Mr. Frank McManus: Mr. Frank McManus (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) rose—

Mr. Gardner: I am sorry I cannot give way. I have already given way twice. We must look at the matter in a different way when we consider Clause 1 which does away with jury trials for terrorist activities.
I should like to sound a note of warning, one to which I hope this House will be alive and of which it will take notice. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, the right to jury trial is something that cannot be given up lightly and should not be given up lightly. When steps are taken which might cause a slide away from trial by jury it is sometimes difficult to stop the slide. I should be appalled— and I hope that my feeling of abhorrence would be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—at the prospect that the abandonment for the moment of the jury system in trials in Northern Ireland was something which those who oppose the jury system generally—and there are people of this mind—might latch on to and later adopt for the purpose of arguing that the jury system should not be brought back again to Northern Ireland or that its use should be diminished in any way in any part of this Kingdom. I am sure that this is a fear which will not materialise in the future if we keep well in mind the perils of suspending in a temporary way the rights which are inherent in our system and remember that we must restore those rights as soon as we can.
Finally, I should like to demonstrate to the House now the danger to which I have just referred of a slide away from the jury system and trial by jury and how easy it is to find oneself giving way to the general principle that if there are exceptional and grave reasons for abandoning the jury system we can afford to start allowing such trials of offences other than those which are inspired by or carried out by terrorists.
In paragraph 41 of the Diplock Report there is a view expressed by the Commission with which I wholly agree. It warns that counts for scheduled offences —that is, offences inspired by and carried out by terrorists—and offences which are non-scheduled offences—that is, ordinary criminal offences—should not be joined together in the same indictment. This means, in effect, that where a terrorist offence is being tried it should be tried separately and apart from any offence which is not a terrorist offence covered by the schedule.
But what does the Bill do in its present form? Looking at Clause 1(3) we see that separate counts of an indictment alleging a scheduled offence and an offence which is not a scheduled offence are to be
conducted in accordance with this section".
In other words, there is an example of a mixture of the two offences, which I submit to the House is repugnant. If we are to have, as I believe we must, this abandonment of trial by jury only in special and exceptional cases, we must be very careful indeed that we contain this power and the ways in which this power is used.
It is all too easy for the courts or the administrators responsible for the courts to argue, or for the enemies of trial by jury to say, that if we do away with juries, if we take over and give the case to a single judge, we speed up the trial, shorten the trial and get through more cases, and that justice is bound to benefit. But it does not. According to paragraph 38 of the report the incidental benefit of doing away with juries is that trials are shortened, so enabling more cases to be dealt with. That is not a good reason for doing away with juries.
Whereas I have already submitted to the House that I believe that we must, in the exceptional circumstances that obtain at the moment, unhappily, in Northern Ireland, accept that cases will have to be tried by a single judge, I beg this House to remember the dangers of allowing that principle to go beyond what is absolutely necessary because of the tragedy of Northern Ireland today.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I listened fascinated to the hon


and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Edward Gardner). He made what sounded to me an excellent case for voting against this measure tonight. No wonder that laymen such as myself and people outside are often puzzled by verdicts after hearing the evidence and listening to trials. I heard what I thought was a good demolition job on this Bill. But the hon. and learned Member ended with almost exactly the opposite conclusions from those for which I felt he had spoken.
I almost got the impression at one stage that he was saying that because we feel, or know, or suspect that there is a certain amount of latent colour prejudice in a certain part of London, or Britain or wherever, we ought to have another look at the jury system. If there is anywhere the same kind of prejudice and emotional upsurge as Diplock mentions in connection with Northern Ireland, perhaps the hon. and learned Member would like us to look at the jury system in those cases, too. Or perhaps where there is anti-Semitism we should look at the jury system.
This has made me sad because, again as a layman, I had hoped that members of the legal profession would be in the forefront of the battle tonight to retain this hard-won right of trial by jury. I am a little worried, therefore, when I hear very well-respected legal men putting all the arguments against this but then reluctantly accepting it because it is somewhere else, in Norhern Ireland.
I remember the statements in the House last week when we were all shocked by the Peter Niesewand case in Rhodesia. I remember agreeing with every one of them made from both sides of the Chamber.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: That was Rhodesia, far away.

Mr. Stallard: Two Early Day Motions put down by hon. Members from different sides of the House seem to sum up the discussion in that instance. One says:
That this House emphatically condemns the savage sentence on Mr. Peter Niesewand, after a secret trial in Salisbury, Rhodesia; draws attention to this further evidence of the repression of free speech by the authoritarian Smith régime …
I agree 100 per cent. with that. Whether it is Rhodesia, Zambia, Malaysia or

Northern Ireland, I agree with the sentiments expressed in that Early Day Motion. I heard hon. Members on the other side paying lip service to that. In fact nearly 100 of them signed it.
The other Early Day Motion emanated from the other side of the Chamber. It said:
That this House deplores the decision of the Rhodesian authorities to hold the trial of Peter Niesewand in camera without allowing any details of the charges to be known; shares the great concern already expressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs …
I agree with that as well and I am only sorry that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not here tonight to make the same kind of representation about the kind of trials we are to set up in camera if this Bill goes through in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: What my hon. Friend says is completely accurate. But does not he agree also that the excuse which Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and South Africa give is always, "These are exceptional circumstances and we are altering the rule only because the circumstances are exceptional. We would never do so otherwise"? In this case—the exceptional circumstance is the need to suppress terrorism.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for finishing the point which I started to make. He is absolutely right, of course. Wherever we find this practice, it is always for exceptional circumstances—

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose—

Mr. Stallard: No. I will not give way. I wish to make a number of points and I have promised to be brief. I want to fulfil my promise.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Give way.

Mr. Stallard: No, I will not give way. My main objection—and again I do not take legal objections because I do not profess to know too much about the legalities of the situation—is that I felt it was unwise to set up the Diplock Commission in the first place. I said at the time that I did not agree with it


because I did not think that it was possible to deal with the problems in the Six Counties piecemeal. It is no good reacting to events. We have to take a wider approach if we are to get near to any solution. It is not good enough to move bit by bit. It is no good, when we come up against a problem, introducing a Bill or having a bit more military action. That is not the way to solve the problem in Northern Ireland. For that reason, I did not agree with the setting up of the Diplock Commission, with the terms of reference that it was given. They were much too narrow.
As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out already, it appears that part of the basis for the Diplock Commission was conviction-oriented. It was to get more convictions. It was felt that we were not getting enough on the present system and that we ought to do away with juries because they were not efficient enough to get the convictions that we wanted. That cannot be the right approach. We had an opportunity to move towards a solution. I am sad that it was not taken.
I have never agreed with the approach of the Secretary of State to internment. I still do not. I hope that one day I may be able to agree with him about it, but that day will come only when he ends it. Until then I cannot agree with him. There was an opportunity, and now there is another to make a clean break from this military approach. Let us adopt a much wider politically-based approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. I know that that is difficult.
Having read the Bill I contend that despite what is being said today, it is simply an extension of the Special Powers Act. Certainly it maintains or continues internment or detention, by whatever fancy name it is called. People always used to be unemployed, but today they are redundant. It used to be called internment, but now it is detention. However, people taken to Long Kesh or to the Maze prison do not differentiate between internment and detention. They are inside and they have to undergo all the rigours which accompany their situation.
The argument is that we have to deal with terrorism. However, in my view we ought to stand back a little and look

at some of the causes. To do that one does not have to go back much further than 9th August 1970 when this Government introduced internment. It is one of the root causes of many of the problems which have existed since.
The present Government and others have misread and misjudged completely the social implications of internment and the Special Powers Act. They do not realise that they are both major symbols of the minority grievance, always have been and will continue to be until the Government do away with them. I remember spending the first two weeks of my first parliamentary recess together with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) trying to recall Parliament in order to discuss internment. We succeeded in getting a fair number of hon. Members to agree that Parliament should be recalled. It was recalled a few weeks later—and too late. Nevertheless, it was recalled and we made our views known.
I have not changed my views about internment since. But I do not think that the effects socially and in every other way have got home to a considerable number of hon. Members. It is not sufficiently realised how deep the hatred of internment and the Special Powers Act has gone, nor how this one-sided application of a repressive measure has affected the entire population. It has been counter-productive. This legislation will be the same.
All that we have to do is to look at what has happened since internment and at what it has achieved. What happened after the introduction of internment? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) may smirk, but let us see what has happened since its introduction. It has been responsible for the polarisation of the two communities. Certainly it has been responsible for the alienation of the minority—

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose—

Mr. Stallard: No. I will not give way.

Mr. McMaster: Give way.

Mr. Stallard: It has been responsible for training a significant brotherhood of Long Kesh graduates. People who spend any length of time there, if and when they come out, find it difficult to resist


the pressure to carry on the battle from outside. That is understandable. We all know the conditions which exist in that unhappy place and in others which some of us have visited. We know of the spirit amongst the thousands of relatives of those involved, and we know what that has done to local communities. That is why I say that the introduction of internment and of that repressive measure has not succeeded. This legislation will have the same effect. The people will never be defeated by a repressive and military approach to the problem. Sooner or later we shall have to sit down and consider it in a broader context. We have to get out of the military straitjacket. Only then shall we have a chance to get somewhere.
When I first read the White Paper I was hopeful enough to think that we were beginning to create an atmosphere in the Six Counties in which those who wanted to work for this kind of solution would be able to operate. I saw the White Paper as a beginning—

Mr. MeMaster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at last giving way. I am sure that he does not want to mislead the House. Internment was introduced in 1971, not 1970, and far from it being responsible for violence, there had been two years of violence, starting with the riots in Londonderry in 1969 and continuing through 1970 and 1971 with vicious bombings in the centre of Belfast. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that from one who has lived through this period. Was not that the cause of the alienation of the people, rather than the effect of internment? I ask the hon. Gentleman to think about it.

Mr. Stallard: I am thinking about it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the date of the introduction of internment. If I had it wrong, I apologise. But the principle is the same. I maintain that the measure was counter-productive and produced all the evils that I spelt out. Certainly there has been more violence since. However hon. Members on the Government benches juggle with dates to try to make out a case for internment, they will never succeed. Therefore, I say that this Bill will not help in the production of a climate in which people can

work towards a peaceful political situation.
The contrary is probably true. If I needed any further justification I should refer to what the Secretary of State said last week. He gave another kind of catalogue, almost exactly the opposite catalogue to that which we have heard week in and week out from the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a catalogue of successes. He told the House how more people had been arrested and how more people had been tried. He told us that there were more successful trials and that more people were inside. He said that we were getting on top and that we were winning.
After listening to the right hon. Gentleman I began to wonder why there was a need to introduce this measure. Why is it necessary if things are going so well? It was the Secretary of State who said that things were going well, and not my right hon. or hon. Friends.
I have said that this measure perpetuates the Special Powers Act. The position might be worse, if that is possible. Under the Special Powers Act there was a jury system and there were trials by jury. It is difficult to see how this measure even contributes towards any kind of solution in the present circumstances.
Like other hon. Members I have tried to understand the Bill and I have tried to take some advice from my legal hon. Friends. I have tried to understand the gist of the Bill so that I should know what is happening. I summarise the situation by saying that the Bill will allow all proceedings before the commissioners and the police tribunals to be held in camera. The Bill will permit unsworn statements as evidence. We have heard that spelt out tonight. A detainee and his lawyers can be excluded from any part of the proceedings and can be excluded from hearing the alleged proof against a detainee. A detainee and his lawyers can also be deprived, during their absences from the hearing, of the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Nobody can be happy about that kind of innovation. It appears that legal evidence is not required and the Commission can accept evidence which would be inadmissible in an ordinary court of law. This


is not happening in Rhodesia or in any far-away place but in the United Kingdom. These events are taking place only a few miles away.
A detainee can be kept in detention solely because he is suspected. He can be picked up on some kind of suspicion. I should love to spend another hour and a half spelling out suspicions. The Secretary of State can act as the accuser, the judge, the jury and counsel for the prosecution.
We should be careful about passing this measure tonight. I shall be voting against it if only because I have to maintain my consistency on internment. I feel that the legal profession are prepared to give way, however lightly, as some hon. Members have suggested. If they are prepared to give up the right which every British citizen has, wherever he is, of trial by jury, then the rest of us may have to fight to retain it.

Mr. Gardner: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted seriously what I said. I did not say that we should give up these rights lightly. I said that we should give the matter the most serious consideration. Indeed, I did so, and explained those considerations carefully to the House.

Mr. Stallard: I accept that correction from the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde. I had the impression that he said that we should not give up our rights lightly. I say that we should not give them up, full-stop. That is the difference between us. If that is the difference between the legal profession and the non-legals, I stand for the non-legals.
That is the kind of thing for which we should be fighting. For all the reasons which have been stated from the Opposition benches, and for the reasons which will be stated by all thinking people outside who are seeking a political solution in the context with which I have been trying to deal, I hope that the Secretary of State will have further thoughts about this measure. I hope that those who feel like me will vote against it.

7.35 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No one who believes in democracy could be enthusiastic about the Bill. There is no point in our wearing blinkers. The

Bill strikes at the rights of the individual, hard and forcibly. On the other hand, it must be said clearly, strongly and as dogmatically as possible that there are circumstances now prevailing in Northern Ireland that are both frightful and horrifying.
Those circumstances do not operate against the Roman Catholic population or the Protestant population alone. They operate across the board. There are assassinations, murders, kidnappings, plots and counter-plots and conspiracies and counter-conspiracies. Only those who live in Northern Ireland—and Opposition hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are as well aware of this as I am—will know that a frightening situation has developed and is developing.
As far back as July last year I suggested that the Government should consider law and order seriously. The Government have dragged their feet. Various matters should have been considered urgently. While I am sure that all hon. Members will want to protect the rights of the individual, we must also understand that the community in Northern Ireland—I am not talking of one section of the community but of the whole community—is in a life and death struggle for its very existence. The rights of individuals must be balanced with the rights of the community.
In order that we might consider objectively the proposals before us we must keep that balance clearly in mind. I preface my remarks by drawing attention to a matter on which I must register a difference of opinion with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), for whom I have the utmost respect. He said that because law and order had broken down in Northern Ireland it was necessary to introduce internment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Law and order had not broken down when internment was introduced. If the law of the land had been operated properly, fairly and rigorously, there would have been no need for the introduction of internment.
Let this House remember that internment was introduced in a double-handed manner. Mr. Faulkner announced that he would ban the parade of the Apprentice Boys of Derry. That was to be a


sop, evidently, to the Roman Catholic-population. Then he said that he was bringing in internment. That was evidently to be a sop to the Protestant population.
I made myself unpopular in Northern Ireland because I was one of the few Protestants who condemned internment and its introduction. Those people who are now protesting against detainment and internment because Protestants are being detained and interned were among my strongest critics. They have now discovered what I always believed, that internment is not the answer to law and order in Northern Ireland. We should not blink the facts. People were rounded up initially from the Roman Catholic community because it was from that community that the IRA recruited. The whole Roman Catholic population then became indignant and aroused and antagonised because they saw their coreligionists interned without trial.
Mr. Faulkner said that he did not sign an internment order without the greatest possible evidence that that person should be interned. Yet within a few days he was letting out some people who had been interned. He cannot have it both ways. This led to a very serious situation.
I was not enthusiastic about the original detention order, but in the circumstances I said that I was prepared to go along with the Government. But tonight I feel, personally, greatly aggrieved because the detention proposal which is now in the Bill is putting the gloss of a trial by law upon what is internment in its worst possible form. The members of the legal profession in Belfast refuse now to go to tribunal trials and none is taking place in Long Kesh any more. They have been adjourned because counsel and solicitors on both sides of the religious fence will not attend. I know this because representatives of the Bar, Roman Catholic and Protestant, approached me.
I led a deputation to the Minister of State at Stormont the other day including a Roman Catholic solicitor and counsel and a Protestant solicitor and counsel. They told him clearly that, as professional legal representatives, they were not prepared to be humiliated in going to a court of law. They were not prepared to be subjected to a search, to

having their cases opened and their papers read and to being ordered to take off their shoes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): They do that with me.

Rev. Ian Paisley: So they may, if the Under-Secretary submits himself to that procedure, but the legal profession in Belfast will not submit themselves. They admit that there is a security situation in the Maze Prison and that there have to be precautions. They suggest that they should be escorted from the prison gate to the courthouse and they have no objection to their clients being searched after they have talked to them; they would then agree to being escorted back to the gate.
One thing they say, I look on very seriously. The members of my deputation said, "When we go to Crumlin Road Prison, we are not subjected to these indignities". But we had hardly left Stormont Castle when the same rigorous searching started at Crumlin Road and my phone was heated up by the complaints of solicitors who had never been searched before but who were now being subjected to these indignities.

Mr. Mather: I cannot understand this fuss about searches. We do not have identity cards and we have to be searched when we come to this House. There is no indignity in this House.

Mr. McNamara: How often has the hon. Gentleman had to take his shoes off?

Rev. Ian Paisley: By saying that, the hon. Member—for whom I have the greatest respect—shows that he does not understand the situation. Is his case opened, are his papers taken out and is every page of his book turned over? Is he searched and asked to remove his coat? One prominent solicitor was asked to remove his shoes.
I have been subjected to road checks in Belfast in my own area, and have always submitted myself to the rigours of searching. These are men of the legal profession, going to a court of law to do a job of work for a client and they are being treated in this way. This is not right. If this House or the Government say that the searches must continue, the legal profession will not carry on the tribunals.
The original proposal about evidence being given in secret related to any "part" of the proceedings. When I read that in the original order, I thought that it referred to just a part of the proceedings. But it now affects the whole of the proceedings.
In one case, which is no longer sub judice, learned counsel and a solicitor attended the trial of a detainee. The counsel for the Treasury got up and said, "We do not want any of the evidence which we have presented to be heard by the detainee or his representatives. They will have to leave the tribunal room." When the counsel and solicitor rose to go, they were told that they could listen to the anonymous gentleman behind the screen, whose brown boots were the only evidence that he was there, taking the oath. They said that they did not want to hear him take the oath; they wanted to know what he would say.
They had to leave the room for 90 minutes. When they returned, the Commissioner said that, in view of representations made to him, no part of the evidence could be made known to the detainee's representatives, other than that the man was accused of belonging to a proscribed organisation and that, on or about a certain date, he had conspired with others to cause an explosion.
The learned counsel addressed the brown boots thus: "How do you get the information that my client belongs to an illegal organisation and conspired to cause an explosion?" The answer was, "I was informed." Counsel asked, "Will you name your informer?" The answer was, "No; in the interests of security, the informer's name cannot be revealed." By the way, the detainee concerned was a Protestant. I say that in case someone thinks that a Roman Catholic Republican has sold me this story, hook, line and sinker.
Then the learned counsel asked, "Did you pay for your information?" Before brown boots could check himself, he had said, "Yes." Counsel asked, "What amount of money did you pay?" The answer was, "In the interests of security that cannot be told." The next question backed up something said earlier: "Has your informer a criminal record?" The answer was, "In the interests of security, that cannot be revealed." That was all

the evidence. This is a serious situation, and we should face the fact. I emphasise that we are in a serious situation in Northern Ireland. Everyone in the House knows that my policy is for the defeat militarily of the Irish Republican Army. It has to be put down and defeated. But we need to have a very careful look at the legislation we are being asked to pass tonight.
I am glad that the Secretary of State said that he would welcome our looking at the legislation. I am attempting to look at it through the eyes of those people whose lives will be affected by the result of it.
I come secondly to the first part of the Bill. I am very disturbed about this. I tabled a series of Questions in Stor-mont, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows, before Stormont was prorogued. I asked the Attorney-General whether he had any evidence of the intimidation of juries, and whether he had any evidence that juries brought in perverse verdicts. His answer was "No." I tabled a Question on this matter soon after I became a Member of this House. I could not get any evidence that juries were intimidated or had brought in perverse verdicts.
That is why I intervened earlier to ask the Secretary of State for some evidence of this. If we had evidence of this today, it would help us in making up our minds on parts of this legislation which, naturally, are "unpalatable". I quote the Secretary of State's own words to us. But there is one thing I cannot understand, and it is this: if juries can be got at, so can judges.
An honourable Gentleman spoke about religious affiliations of judges. Perhaps that comes into it. But I want to bear testimony that I believe that the judges and magistrates of Northern Ireland have done a very fine job of work. There may be one or two exceptions, but on the whole they have put their religious opinions aside, and some of them have risked their lives. Some have been shot. I think especially of Mr. Staunton, a Roman Catholic magistrate, who was brutally gunned down and whose life came to a terrible end simply because he sought to be fair, just and honourable on the bench. I want to put that clearly on the record.
Judges and magistrates can be got at in Northern Ireland. It is easier to get at a judge, who is already appointed and whose name and address are known, than to get at 12 jurymen who are picked only for a limited time and for a particular case. That should be absolutely clear.
Will the Attorney-General say how many jurymen have been intimidated? Will he tell us in how many cases he thinks that perverse verdicts have been brought in? I think that I quote the Secretary of State correctly. He said that they were "strange" verdicts. Those verdicts may seem strange, but we are not in possession of all the facts. We see only a cursory summary of the matter in newspapers. Perhaps if we were aware of all the facts we should be better able to say whether those verdicts were in keeping with the evidence. That would be very helpful to us. It is essential evidence in discussing this matter.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): When the hon. Gentleman says that judges have been "got at", it ought to be made absolutely clear that they were got at not on the basis of bribery but on the basis of intimidation. One does not want any mistake about that. In eighteenth century form in this country, the phrase "got at" usually meant bribery.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In Ulster parlance today, "got at" means intimidation.
There are judges living in areas which are strongly Republican and judges living in areas strongly Loyalist. They are putting away Loyalists and they are putting away Republicans. I am thinking of one judge who lives in West Belfast. He is a very well-known man. I shall not mention his name. He goes in and out of a house in West Belfast. He has put IRA men away for long terms of imprisonment. He goes through a Republican area to the court every day. It is quite possible that he could be got at by terrorists who wanted to wipe him out or to do him grievous bodily harm. I was speaking to him the other day. I commended him for his courage, tenacity and integrity in doing his job. I am sure that the House is grateful to such men for the difficult task they are performing.
Turning to Clause 2, I accept that because of the emergency certain regula-

tions must be retained, but surely the Attorney-General would agree with me that when such cases are proceeding, they should proceed as quickly as possible. I am not happy about the 90-day period in regard to the granting of bail. That means that if a man is in for 89 days, he can be told "You are only in for 89 days. You will not get bail." Ninety days is a long time. Not many hon. Members have been in prison. I have. I know that 90 days in prison is a long time. Sometimes I wish that the legal profession had to serve a term of imprisonment. They would then sympathise with the people whom they help to put away for considerable stretches. I would not suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen on both Front Benches should serve a term in Northern Ireland, but perhaps they could serve it in one of the better prisons in their own country.
I draw the attention of the House to the almost impossible criterion to be followed by the judge:
A judge shall not admit any such person to bail unless he is satisfied that the applicant … will not commit any offence while he is on bail.
How could any judge be absolutely satisfied that the prisoner might not park on the wrong side of the road or exceed a speed limit of 40 miles an hour? This involves "any offence", not only criminal offences. Whoever drafted the Bill was not cognisant of some very important points in Northern Ireland.
On page 11, Clause 18(3) states:
The organisations specified in Schedule 2 to this Act are proscribed organisations for the purposes of this section; and any organisation which passes under a name mentioned in that Schedule shall be treated as proscribed, whatever relationship (if any) it has to any other organisation of the same name.
When I read that, I nearly passed out.
Are hon. Members aware that there is an Ulster Volunteer Force hospital in Belfast in which members of Her Majesty's Forces receive treatment? Are hon. Members aware that an ambulance bearing this name travels through the streets of Belfast? It is an Ulster Volunteer Force ambulance with the red hand on it. Are hon. Members aware that the security forces have called in this ambulance time after time and attempted to arrest its driver? Only after considerable representations to the military authorities has this man escaped being taken


to Long Kesh or to a closed prison. I happen to know the gentleman concerned.
Those who draft such Bills should make themselves aware of the facts in Northern Ireland. I have drawn attention to a glaring inconsistency. There is another on the same page to which I draw attention. It is Clause 18(1)(b) which says that any person who
solicits or invites financial or other support for a proscribed organisation, or knowingly makes or receives …
Allied Irish Banks gave £5,000 to the Irish Republican Army the other day— under threat of force. Is the Attorney-General prepared to allow prosecutions against people who are forced to give money to these organisations? If so he will have a lot of people to prosecute.
I know of old-age pensioners whose doors are knocked on in certain areas of Belfast, especially in the area covered by the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, West. An hon. Member of this House was in the home of an old-age pensioner. There was a knock on the door and her son came in and said, "That's the IRA men for their money ". That woman had to give 50p to the Provisional IRA. That is a fact because the hon. Member said, "Don't you give it. I am prepared to give it because I know that you need your 50p, mother." Those are the facts. Intimidation is taking place. I do not say that it is only on the Roman Catholic side. There are people paying safety money in other places in the city of Belfast.
Let us get this straight and above-board. This is an important part of the Bill. I would have liked to deal with many other parts but I have already spoken for too long. I want to deal with that part of the Bill which concerns powers of arrest. This is very widely drawn. Clause 9 says,
Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of being a terrorist.
Why is that put in the widest possible sense? Every constable can suspect anyone. I ask the Attorney-General why he did not include the word "reasonably"? The clause goes on in subsection (2):
For the purpose of arresting a person under this section a constable may enter and search any premises or other place where

that person is or where the constable suspects him of being.
Why not "reasonably suspects him"? The constable is never answerable to any authority. He says, "I suspect and in I go". Surely the word "reasonably" should be inserted here. In Clause 10(1) we find the following:
Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects
—not" reasonably suspects"—
of committing, having committed or being about to commit a scheduled offence or an offence under this Act which is not a scheduled offence.
The same power is given to Her Majesty's forces.
The amusing thing arises with these inspectors under Clause 13, whoever they are. These individuals have the power to stop a person in the street and to say, "I am an inspector appointed under Section 53 of the Explosives Act 1875". If a man stopped me in the street and told me that I would think twice before allowing him to see my car or to do-anything about the vehicle in which I was travelling. How can the ordinary general public understand that an inspector has the right to stop people in the street? Surely this should be limited to members of Her Majesty's forces.
Clause 14 contains another anomaly. It speaks of
any person believed to be unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his life is in danger".
If he is unlawfully detained, whether or not his life is in danger, the security forces should be able to go in and bring him out. But that is permitted only in circumstances when he could be murdered, according to the clause. He could be unlawfully detained, kidnapped and held for a considerable time to supply an alibi for someone committing a crime or perhaps because his car has been taken to assist in committing that crime. I suggest that where a person is believed to be unlawfully detained, then any member of Her Majesty's forces has the duty to go in and bring out that person, irrespective of whether his life is in danger.
Clause 16 gives power to any member of Her Majesty's forces to take possession of any land or property and to take steps to place buildings or other structures in a state of defence. Is there


any right of appeal here? If the Army moves in and a soldier says, "I am taking over your home", is there any appeal or is his word final? The occupier of such property would naturally feel aggrieved and would want to appeal against such a move. Will someone have the right to hear what he has to say and to receive his submissions?
Another part of the Bill disturbs me is Clause 23 which says:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions additional to the foregoing.
This is another line of country altogether. When we are dealing with the rights of the individual, as we are in this Bill—and in view of the serious situation in Northern Ireland and the rights of the community which must also be protected —there should be special constitutional safeguards hedging around every emergency provision so that those provisions can be scrutinised by Parliament not in 12 months' time but in a much shorter period of time.
I have mentioned the things which disturbed me about the Bill. There are amendments which need to be made to it. I regret that the Leader of the House has been unable to find time to hold the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. When we are dealing with a proposal of such constitutional magnitude this is the place for it. It will not affect hon. Members representing parts of the country other than Northern Ireland. Such hon. Members will not have people coming to them saying, "My son was lifted tonight and taken away. What can I do?" We shall have people lining up saying that. The opportunity should be given to every Northern Ireland Member to put forward amendments. This is important to the people of Northern Ireland. We will not give away our liberties easily, willy-nilly. We will make a fight for what liberties we have.
While I differ from Labour Members on many matters, I feel that tonight there are many of us on both sides who are, to say the least, uneasy about these proposals. It was a valid point to make that the Government are putting scheduled and non-scheduled offences into trials without jury. Here we have a mingling of these crimes. There should be a clear distinction between ordinary crimes and crimes against the State, designed to bring down the State.
I hope that the Attorney-General can give us some satisfaction on these vital points. I hope, too, that he will say that the ambulance which carries British Servicemen to and from the Craigavon Hospital will still be able to go to and fro in Belfast and that the poor driver will not again be subject to scrutiny. I hope, too, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that members of his profession have the way opened to them to attend these tribunals in the Maze Prison to provide some representation to those unfortunate enough to be brought before such tribunals.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was wrong on at least one important aspect in this regard. He said that only the sons of people in Northern Ireland were being lifted and that it was only they who would feel the effects of the legislation. The reason why so many hon. Members are opposed to the legislation is that our friends, our constituents, our sons, are affected by the legislation. The people affected will be also those serving in the Army in Northern Ireland and those soldiers who will be the victims of the terrorists' bomb or bullet if the policies in the White Paper and the Bill are not successful. We are opposed to the legislation because we fear both for our sons who are over there and for the people of Northern Ireland and the effect that this legislation might have on our own system of justice. It is for these reasons that I cannot support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
An essential feature of our liberties in this country is not only that we have the establishment of facts and the application of the law to those facts, but that the defence of the individual against arbitrary Government and executive action is through the procedures by which those facts are arrived at. Any weakening of procedural justice is a weakening not only of the rights of the individual, but of the community as a whole, because the community is an organisation of individuals. If we weaken the rights of one we immediately start a chain process which can weaken the rights of the others.
The great weakness of the Diplock Report, apart from its understatement, lack of evidence and statistical proof and the fact that it is based upon hearsay


because it does not support any of its conclusions by positive evidence, is that it ends by a half aside, a hint, a nod, that it might perhaps be a good thing if some of the ideas contained within the report came across to England.
If we allow what is proposed in this legislation to go through unaltered, there will be pressures on us to have that sort of stuff in England. Therefore, we are afraid and worried about such items as proscribed organisations, guilt by association, detention, the treatment of young prisoners, the question of bail and prisoners' statements and of scheduled and non-scheduled offences. If that idea permeates across the Irish Sea into England our liberties will be put at risk.
It would not be long before we heard the suggestion, "As we have not been able to prove a case against the Angry Brigade or against somebody else who commits a crime of a political nature, we must have what they have in Northern Ireland." Then it would not be long before we heard the suggestion, "That man broke into a bank to steal money for a political purpose whereas another man stole money to put into his pocket. Therefore, one man will be subject to one set of rules and the other to another set of rules." Eventually, there will be pressure from the police and the public that the weaker set of rules should be used in all cases. So we erode our liberties. This is why I cannot accept the Bill.
Then we come to the justification of the Bill. The whole argument is a tremendous hoodwink. It is, "We are abolishing the Special Powers Act except for those bits which we still deem necessary." When we look at the bits which are still deemed necessary, we find that they have been in continuous use since the troubles began, since William Craig first signed his order against the Republican clubs banning the marches. These bits have been in use all the time. The other bits which have not been in use have been pushed away.
The argument is that we are doing away with the Special Powers Act. Section 1(3) of the Special Powers Act provides:
The Minister of Home Affairs shall have power to make regulations—

(a) for making further provision for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order, and

(b) for varying or revoking any provisions of the regulations".


Clause 23 of the proposed Bill provides:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision additional to the foregoing provisions of this Act for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order.
So we have the Special Powers Act right there in the Emergency Provisions Bill.
It will be argued, "But this is different. We must now have an order of the House once a year to keep the Act going. Of course, we might be very good. We might let it be every six months if we give way gracefully to the Opposition and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North on this argument."
The Special Powers Act started its miserable history by being enacted for one year only. It was then consolidated. So we are keeping the Special Powers Act.
Let us look at the other reasons for this Bill. It is encumbent upon the Government to show, not that they have a hunch, not that they think it will work, but that they have positive statistical evidence that the legislation, if introduced, will be successful.
I tabled a series of Questions on all these various points. They are in HANSARD today. I asked the Attorney-General
what estimate he has made of the numbers of prosecutions".
The Attorney-General put my Questions together and replied:
It is not possible to make a statistical calculation of the number of such persons. It is estimated that the number of prosecutions should increase.
It is estimated, but there is no evidence.

The Attorney-General: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman first reads the Questions before reading the Answer?

Mr. McNamara: I was coming to that. I was giving the conclusion and then coming to my Questions. I will read through the whole blinking lot and take half an hour doing so if that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants. All the Answers from the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been most unsatisfactory in this regard.
I asked, first,
what estimate he has made of the number of persons in Northern Ireland who will now be brought for trial and for which offences under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill who could not be brought for trial under existing Northern Ireland legislation;
(2)how many people at present detained under interim custody orders or detention orders … will be brought for trial …
(3)what estimate he has made of the numbers of prosecutions, and for which scheduled offences, which will now be brought as the result of the enactment of Section 4 … concerning the admissibility of written statements…
(4)what estimate he has made of the number of prosecutions … which will now be brought against persons detained under interim custody orders".
The Attorney-General replied:
It is not possible to make a statistical calculation".
Is that fair?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman, though I disagree with him, is always fair. The answer states that it is impossible to make a statistical calculation. It has also given the estimate that prosecutions should increase.

Mr. McNamara: It is an estimate that prosecutions should increase, but there is no real evidence whatsoever of the type of thing for which we are looking if we are to pass this legislation. We are entitled to ask for this evidence because these are important inroads into the safety, security, and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
Let us consider, for example, the onus of proof being altered and the question of written statements by the accused. One would think from the evidence and the weight that is attached to it by Diplock and the alarming things that he has said that there were a great number of cases where confessions had been ruled out. But the Attorney-General said:
During the period 30th March 1972 to 13th April 1973 the statements of 21 accused persons were … held to be inadmissible on the grounds that they did not satisfy the tests that such statements must be freely and voluntarily made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 33–4.]
We are now going from a test that is not free and voluntary but is falling just short of torture and inhuman treatment. We cannot do that. Again, we have the onus of proof switched in the case of pos-

session of arms and explosives and similar offences.
These are important questions that need an answer. The learned Attorney-General replied that 39 cases were not successful because of switching the onus of proof. These 39 cases and the 21 cases may all indeed have been very serious ones, but whether in the context of the Northern Ireland situation they justify the change of rule of law is very doubtful. On the question of bail, I asked the Secretary of State:
… how much money has been forfeited to the Crown as a result of persons not surrendering to bail in Northern Ireland.
The reply was that the information was not available at the moment, but was being sought. I then asked him:
How many persons charged with offences arising from the present unrest in Northern Ireland have applied for bail and to which courts; in how many cases bail has been granted; and in how many cases persons have failed to surrender to bail and in connection with what offences?
The reply was:
The information is not readily available but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 57.]
It may well be that the cases in which these clauses seek to increase the rigours of bail are justified, but if so that evidence should be available and produced. This should not be a matter we have to try to search out by question, to receive the answer that there is no evidence to support it.
Next we come to the question of detention. The arguments against detention may be summed up in three phases —secret trial, hearsay evidence and indefinite sentence. "Ah", say the Government, "but this new wonderful system of commissioners and appeal tribunals is working splendidly." One then says, "We are very keen to know just how well is it working. Can you tell us in how many cases evidence has been given when the respondent has not been present? In how many cases has the commissioner not been informed of the origins of the evidence? In how many cases, for example, has the respondent refused to recognise the authority of the court?" The answer is, "we have no evidence. All these trials are held in private". One cannot continue to legislate seriously in this way. The Bill goes to the very root


of the civil liberties of United Kingdom citizens but, more than that, it goes to the root of the problems in Northern Ireland.
The Government have not replaced the Special Powers Act for all the fancy title and all their alleged parliamentary supervision. They have not got rid of the causes of minority irritants, and the fact that those irritants are now being applied to some of the majority justifies them not one little bit.
The Government will not solve a situation and create a new era in Northern Ireland with all the hopes in the White Paper fulfilled when, before the Bill is published enumerating the human rights, they produce legislation making their application to derogate from the Charter of Human Rights of European Convention the first item of their legislation.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) was right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are making not just small changes in our law if we accept the Bill. The extent to which it extends effects major inroads into very important principles. It is right we should look that straight in the eye when we consider what we are doing. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not say many things with which I agree, but he fairly listed some of those inroads.
Most hon. Members, and certainly every lawyer, would agree with the majority of the observations made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope) in so far as they were expressed as general propositions. I go further, and say, speaking generally, that many of the provisions of the Bill are abhorrent to principles and practices that most of our people, lawyers and laymen alike, hold very dear.
We all agree that these rights were hard fought for and should not be given up lightly. We all agree that, in Committee, literally the most careful examination must be given to the details of the Bill. I do not think there is one hon. Member who would not accept the proposition that we must not go any further than can be justified by those who ask the House to give them these powers. Every

hon. Member would probably agree that a heavy onus lies upon those who ask the House for these powers. But all of that was accepted, and not merely accepted but adumbrated, by the Secretary of State when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. As was clear from his speech then, the Government have not shrunk in any way from those or any other relevant considerations.
I suggest that tonight the House has to decide whether the onus of justification has been satisfied. I do not think I have said anything controversial so far, and I can go on being non-controversial by saying that without doubt we are all greatly indebted to Lord Diplock and his colleagues for their efforts, their researches, and their analysis of the situation. We may not agree with every part of the report, but it is unlikely that any of us would agree in toto with everything done by somebody else. We should feel greatly indebted to Lord Diplock and his collagues for what they have given us for our use in consideration of the justification.
But the Government cannot seek to rely solely upon the views expressed by an independent body—and they do not seek to do so. In his speech tonight the Secretary of State has not attempted to do that. He has also set out—possibly more briefly than he would have liked, because he had so much to cover—his further reasons for saying that. Furthermore, I suggest that to those like myself who do not profess to know, and therefore do not express a view on, what happens in Northern Ireland, comments have been made in the House during the course of the debate that, even though the temperature has been fairly cool, have tended to suggest that some such measures as this are justified. I would suggest that this is the crux of the matter: are measures of this type justified? The onus of that is clearly accepted by the Government and I suggest that they have made out their case.
I want to touch on only two other points that have arisen. I am happy to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on one point. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I never thought there would be anything on which I would agree with him. He referred to the position of the judiciary


in Northern Ireland. I was glad to hear the what he said about that, and what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
It is plain even at this distance that the judiciary in Northern Ireland already has a most difficult and dangerous task. It appeared plain to us that it had managed to preserve a reputation for independence in a situation where such an achievement might have seemed virtually impossible. It has done the near impossible. The burdens upon it must already be enormous. The Bill plainly places even greater burdens upon it. I am sure there is nothing controversial in expressing the hope that we shall not do or say anything tonight which could add to the difficulties or dangers faced by the judiciary in the part it has to play in the preservation of law and order in the Province.
I now turn to the question of the inroads made by the Bill into, or the limitations placed by the Bill upon, the jury trial. Some hon. Members have spoken as though we were taking the first step towards the abolition of jury trial in all cases, and that we had gone a considerable distance in that direction. I believe that is an exaggeration of what is being done. Of course there is a danger that the temporary may turn into the permanent, and I am sure that the House is as glad as I am to see that the provisions expire after 12 months unless they are renewed. That is the best evidence a Government can give that they intend the provisions to be temporary. If and when the time comes for the Government to seek renewal of those powers the House must assess whether the onus upon the Government to justify that extension has been discharged by them. But at least for the moment we have the best evidence that the Government mean what they say about the powers being temporary.
Of course, we must ensure that the limited does not become less limited as time goes on—but that is what we are here for. If someone seeks to widen the scope of these powers it is our job to do our utmost to see that there is no widening unless the onus of justification is discharged.
I suppose that those who are proud of the part played by juries in this country take the greatest pride in the part played by them in the trials at the

beginning of the last century, when people were put on trial for expressing their view. We rightly take great pride in the part played by juries and advocates who took part in trials like that of Thomas Paine.

Mr. McNamara: And the Krays and the Richardsons.

Mr. Percival: If anyone were to come to this House suggesting—does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. McNamara: I think I can see the type of argument which the hon. and learned Member is seeking to advance. I believe we can take pride in the fact that juries can also convict the Krays and the Richardsons.

Mr. Percival: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my argument. Then he will be able to see whether it coincides with what he has in mind. I was saying that as well as taking pride generally in the work of the juries, the aspect in which most of us probably take a special pride is that demonstrated by the trials of the early nineteenth century, when juries refused to convict a man for expressing his political views, however extreme they might be. It was only in those years at the very beginning of the century the juries and the advocates who had the courage to do their duty who stood between the freedom of a man to express his political views, whatever they might be, and prison. If any Government asked the House for powers which entailed the slightest inroad into that principle they would get very short shrift. But this Bill does not make the slightest inroads into that principle. Any man who pursues his political convictions—however extreme they may be and whatever they may be—by peaceful and democratic methods has the full protection of the law, the jury and the advocate as we have seen them in action in Northern Ireland.
It is just as well to remember that the Bill does not do. It does not make the slightest inroads into that principle, nor does it make any inroads into the trials of the Krays, the Richardsons, or people like them, for ordinary criminal offences. —if that is not using inexact phraseology. If they are indictable and triable by jury now, such offences will remain indictable


and triable by jury, save those which are scheduled. Let us examine the schedule before we express too extreme views about it. The only cases in which the right to trial by jury may be taken away arc cases of sheer thuggery—and the right is not even taken away in all those cases —because we see from the notes which appear to the schedule that the intention plainly is that sheer thuggery of the ordinary criminal, run-of-the-mill stuff—including murders of a kind which one would not in any way associate with terrorism—will go on being tried by jury, as in the past.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has said that even though it is as limited as that we have a clear duty to give most careful consideration, for example, to provisions such as that contained in Clause 1(3). At the moment I, too, am inclined to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that it is dangerous for us to leave any room for scheduled and non-scheduled offences to be tried together. That is the view which I hold at the moment. No doubt this question will be discussed in detail in Committee. I am sure the Government will then take the view that it is for them to show that that is justified. At the moment it is not easy to see how it could be justified.
I accept that even though the effect is less wide than some hon. Members have suggested, we have in the short term the duty to see that every possible safeguard that is consistent with taking this kind of step is observed. But in the long term the answer lies with those who will persist in thuggery or terrorism, whichever one cares to call it.
Sometimes we overlook the reason why we are having to do this at all. It is— is it not?—largely because those who now profess to hold so dear the rules upon which this Bill impinges so much themselves refuse to obey other rules which are equally dear to the rest of us—and, in particular, the rule which says that we will not tolerate the prosecution of political ideas by thuggery and intimidation. The minute people desist from that kind of action these measures will become unnecessary. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would then be ready to nudge the Government—if the Government needed nudging—to get rid

of these powers. But unless and until those who are induging in violence and intimidation desist, they must understand that we will not shrink from taking whatever measures are necessary to deal with them, however unpalatable those measures may be. The Government have established their case for such powers at this moment.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), like some of his hon. Friends, finds the Bill abhorrent but in discussing parts of it he said, in order to console himself, that this was an emergency and therefore emergency legislation was called for. He reminded us also that the Bill is subject to yearly supervision. He did not meet the point, advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that the Bill still has internment at is heart. Internment, therefore, is to remain, if with some modification. I put it to the hon and learned Gentleman that a Bill of this nature is not merely abhorrent to lawyers but should be unacceptable to them and to the British House of Commons.

Mr. Percival: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in no circumstances is any measure like this justifiable?

Mr. Duffy: Not internment. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty. I was especially interested in the refinements he put forward, but the Bill still provides for non-jury trials in certain circumstances. It still provides for bail, but in certain circumstances getting bail will be difficult and in others impossible. It will provide for written statements to be admissible as evidence in lieu of court appearances in certain circumstances. It will also provide, in cases involving firearms, for the onus of proof to be shifted directly to the defendant to prove his innocence.
My hon. Friend also reminded us that planted evidence is not unknown in this city, let alone in Belfast. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) reminded us, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment are given powers to stop anyone, who will then be liable for prosecution if he fails to disclose information about
… any … incident endangering life …


But I can quote from Press reports of current activities in Northern Ireland, quite apart from the information I get in my post or which is otherwise conveyed to me from Northern Ireland, to show that these provisions mean further opportunities for harassment which can have only a one-sided application and therefore smack of discrimination. They amount also to a denial of privacy and freedom that to me is every bit as serious as the similar provision in the Act that the Bill is supposed to replace.
I also object to the power of search without specific suspicion even though that search follows a murder or kidnapping, because there is much too great a potential for misuse. Indeed, the power is to be available to quite junior officers to impose a virtual curfew. I hope that we may hear further words about this. We should be addressing ourselves to the causes and not to the effects.
I echo what has been said from the Opposition benches about civil rights legislation. Why could it not precede a measure of this kind? That is my direct answer to the hon. and learned Member for Southport. Why not produce civil rights legislation first and then define the circumstances and the occasions when it will be derogated from?
The Schedule contains a list of proscribed organisations. I and my hon. Friends have always accepted the Secretary of State's proposals and policies, but I put to him that, whatever his intentions, this list will appear to many to smack of sectarianism. What of the UDA, for example? Does the Secretary of State believe that it is wholly a political organisation?
The British have ever been disposed to coercive legislation in Northern Ireland—with what result history makes abundantly clear. As we saw at Question Time this afternoon, Conservative Members of Parliament are still too uncritical of the rôle and therefore the conduct of the forces of law and order. They purport to protect the troops, but when will they see that their policies are prone to condemn and to continue to condemn those same troops to the frightening vulnerability of Ulster? They aspire to a political solution, but when will they see that only the keenest surveillance of the forces of law and

order will ensure the promotion of conditions conducive to the success of the White Paper? Such attitudes suggest to me a lack of balance.
The powers that the Government seek through the Bill are not only the denial of natural justice but are powers that a Conservative Government are peculiarly unqualified to wield. I shall have no part in granting such powers to them, and I shall vote against the Bill.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I apologise for being absent at the beginning of the debate but until seven o'clock I was serving on the Scottish Grand Committee. I wish to ask only one question, to which I should appreciate a reply tonight.
The Secretary of State in opening said that the Government proposed to introduce an amendment on Report to abolish capital punishment in Northern Ireland. The practical effect of that will be small, because the Government have made it clear—

The Attorney-General: The Secretary of State did not say that an amendment would be introduced on Report. He said that he would table a new clause which, with the assistance of the Leader of the House, will be referred to a Committee of the Whole House and debated on the Floor of the House. The debate in Committee of the whole House will be on that clause only.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry that I did not include that refinement. The amendment will not be of great practical significance because the Government have made it clear that the 1966 Act is not a practical matter in the present day.
Irrespective of the decision at which the House arrives—and in view of last Wednesday's vote it is fairly clear that the abolition of capital punishment in Northern Ireland will be agreed to—it is crucial that the deterrents which are still available to protect the police, our forces and the civilians in Northern Ireland should be as strong as possible. There should be no dilution of the present deterrents.
I should therefore like the Attorney-General to give a clear, unambiguous and unqualified assurance that, irrespective of the situation which arises in Northern


Ireland now or in the future, Her Majesty's Government will in no circumstances agreed to an amnesty for IRA or other criminals sentenced to imprisonment.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I shall be exceedingly brief because I do not want to stand in the way of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), who is to wind up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench.
The White Paper foreshadowed the proposals contained in this Bill. Indeed in paragraphs 9, 19 and 60 of the White Paper the Government made quite clear that they would introduce many of the Diplock provisions and seek any other powers which in their opinion were necessary to contain the situation in Northern Ireland. That was one of the reasons why I and a handful of other hon. Members voted against approval of the White Paper. This Bill contains matters which if they were operated, as indeed they are operated, in other countries would be roundly condemned by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Clause 19 deals with being in possession of information relating to the police or the Armed Forces which could be of use to a terrorist. It will be a crime subject to arrest and subject to all the penalties contained in the Act. Clause 23 lays it open for the Government to take sweeping powers at their discretion. Clause 28, which governs the operation of Clause 23, means that at least for 40 days those sweeping powers can be put into operation purely at the say-so of the Secretary of State.
We have condemned the operation of such measures in Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and many other countries. I will not be a party tonight in support of them in a part of the United Kingdom. I hasten to add that it is part of the United Kingdom which in my view ought not to be part of the United Kingdom.
This is the whole dilemma with which we are faced. Wherever in the world a territory has been held by military force against the consent of the people, the governing body is inevitably forced to rely upon these unacceptable measures.

This is precisely the position in Northern Ireland. It is being held without the consent of the British people because this Government and their predecessors have never given the British people an opportunity to express themselves on the continuation of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. It is being held without the consent of the Irish people because it is held without the consent of the Republic and without the consent of a very sizeable proportion of the people of Northern Ireland itself.
Because we are faced with a continuation of that tragic mistaken policy, British soldiers are being required to carry out an impossible task and many of them to be brutally murdered in so doing. I regret that my hon. and right hon. Friends did not declare themselves against the White Paper. I condemn anyone who now nit-picks on this or any other Bill which comes before the House as a result of the White Paper. The time to have stood up and be counted against this and other measures was on the occasion when the White Paper was before the House.
We should not be hypocrites about this matter—and this applies particularly to Opposition Members—and I do not think that we have the right to put into operation in Northern Ireland those things which we have rightly condemned in other parts of the world. Therefore, I shall vote against the Bill tonight as I voted against the White Paper which foreshadowed this measure.

8.55 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It has been broadly agreed in this vigorous and admirable debate that the problems to be faced in Northern Ireland are more political, and, possibly, military, than legal. With the exception of some of my hon. Friends—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) with his usual vigour—we have broadly supported the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State in his attempt to find political and military solutions for Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the major breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland, the continuance of murders both political and sectarian, and the massive use of explosives—all these matters justify the taking of special


measures while the state of emergency continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) conceded that in this emergency some kind of action would be required, and it may well be that in due course we shall hear from him about his ideas for dealing with this grievous state of emergency.
As I see the situation, the real issue that has emerged in the debate is whether, in the Bill, the Government have over-reacted to the emergency situation and whether they have given the Executive in Northern Ireland powers which exceed what is necessary at the cost of serious infringement of human and civil rights and liberties. If so, the respects in which it docs so will have to be eliminated in subsequent stages of the Bill.
Clearly, this debate has shown concern among Members on both sides of the House about many of the Bill's provisions. The Committee stage will be long and arduous and will add even more to the burdens borne by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. He bears his burdens with cheerfulness, though I venture to think that his job was hard enough even before he assumed responsibilities for Northern Ireland. I hope that I may be forgiven a personal note in saying that I join with the Secretary of State in his observations about the Attorney-General's contribution.
At present reliance is placed on two ways of dealing with those accused of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland. First, there is detention under the provisions of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order which was approved by Parliament in December last and, secondly, trials in the ordinary criminal courts of Northern Ireland. The Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order was undoubtedly an improvement on previous internment arrangements, looked at from the point of view of the rights of the detainee, because there are provisions for a hearing before a legally qualified and independent commissioner and a subsequent right of appeal to an appeal tribunal. We are glad to have the figures because they indicate that this is no idle benefit to detainees. Nevertheless, the procedure combines the continued process of secret trials with the continued admission of evidence and

information which would not be admissible in normal court proceedings. Furthermore, internment, like the Special Powers Act, historically had become a symbol of Catholic grievance.
I have little doubt that these factors led the Government to set up the Diplock Commission. The terms of reference of the Commission were to consider:
what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise than by interment by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities, particularly those who plan and direct, but do not necessarily take part in, terrorist acts; and to make recommendations".
So it was clearly envisaged that arrangements could be made to deal with terrorist organisations other than by internment by the Executive.
The Diplock Report recommends not only that internment should continue; it combines it with new court procedures which exclude many of the safeguards which have been built into our criminal procedures over the centuries, or at least the decades, to try to ensure that innocent persons are not wrongly convicted.
In replying to this debate it will be the Attorney-General's task to satisfy the House that both sets of special powers are necessary. As was admitted by the Secretary of State in opening, the burden of proof rests fairly and squarely upon the Government. There has been a great deal of rhetoric, but very little evidence has emerged in the course of this debate. I hope the learned Attorney-General will condescend to particulars when he replies.
I confess that I see a great deal of force in the dictum, in paragraph 15 of the Diplock Report, that unless the State can ensure the safety of witnesses and protect them against risk to their lives, their families, or their property, it will be unreasonable to expect them to testify voluntarily and morally wrong to try to compel them to do so. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the assumption cannot be made that the State in Northern Ireland can protect witnesses in that way? Can he substantiate that view? We should like some information from him about that.
I ask the further question whether, in coming to the decision to intern detainees, the Government adequately weighed in the balance the hatred of detention that has been expressed many times in the course of this debate. I ask whether the Government have weighed sufficiently the damage that its continuance may do to the prospects of a political settlement.
When we consider the details of the provisions in the Bill regarding detention we see that, as my hon. Friend said in opening for the Opposition, it is at least a good thing that the order is now in the Bill in the form of Schedule 1, because in Committee it will enable us to examine each aspect and amend it wherever it may be necessary.
When the order was debated in the House in December many criticisms were made of its terms. I am somewhat disappointed that little regard seems to have been paid to them, because, with some satisfactory exceptions, it is true—such as the power and duty of review—many of the provisions that were criticised in the debate on the order remain in the Bill. I mentioned the power which, in paragraph 11(2) of the Schedule, is given to the Secretary of State to make an interim custody order which can result in a person's detention for as long as 28 days. In that time there is no room for any kind of external, judicial or independent intervention. That is an out-and-out executive power lasting for as long as 28 days.

Miss Devlin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the actual period is much longer than 28 days— that at the expiration of 28 days one is merely given the papers to appear before the commission, and that the average period is six weeks?

Sir Elwyn Jones: As ladies sometimes do, the hon. Lady has anticipated what I was about to say. I was about to add that the order contains no provision to limit the period of time within which the case must be referred to the commission, nor is there a limit to the period within which the commissioner must come to his decision. Nor, as I understand it, is there a limit to the time which the Detention Appeals Tribunal is given for the adjudication of the appeal. If the Attorney-General has the information

available, it will be interesting to know how the time factor has operated at the taking of these various steps in the internment processes.
I should also like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, once a Minister has signed the interim custody order and it is left to the chief constable to decide whether and when the case should be referred to the commission, the Minister ceases to have further contact with the case. In other words, does it pass wholly into the hands of the police? As I have said, it is true that we now have provisions for review in paragraph 35 of the schedule. That is clearly a welcome feature. But while that exists the terms of the schedule retain that which was criticised when the order was before the House, namely, the power of the Secretary of State to recall the detainee under the old Article 9(3) which is now to be found in paragraph 36(3) of the schedule.
This power of recall is a serious one. We should not like what was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in December as "the cat and mouse method"—the in-and-out method —to be practised. Here, in regard to the power of recall, there is no indication of a duty or a right of reference to a commissioner in the event of recall, or of a right of appeal in the event of the commissioner's deciding that the recall of the detention order should stand—if, indeed, the commissioner has the power to decide that matter. I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the extent of the use of this power of recall since the terrorist order created the power.
I should also like an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that legal aid will be available for proceedings before a commissioner. In the view of the Opposition it should also be available on appeal and recall procedures, and free legal advice should be given as to the review procedures.
Having heard the eloquent account given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the goings on at Long Kesh and about the proceedings before the commissioners, I hope for some reassurance from the Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman's description created a situation of part farce and


part tragedy. I hope that we shall get some reassurance about the treatment not only of the detainees but of the lawyers in the course of the proceedings.
I understand that some leading members of the legal profession in this country sit as commissioners. I hope that we can be reassured that these proceedings, which we commended as giving additional rights to detainees, have not gone sour in practice.
So much for the problems relating to the detention provisions of the schedule. I now turn to Part I of the Bill. The fundamental changes in procedure have been described from the Government benches as unpalatable and from the Opposition benches as contemptible and unacceptable. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the House in December on the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order, a promising account was then given to the House of the working of ordinary court procedure. We were told that out of 72 persons dealt with through the ordinary criminal courts in Belfast in a period of seven weeks for terrorist-type offences, only six were acquitted by juries. On the strength of that information my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) asked the Secretary of State:
Does not that indicate that normally these cases can be dealt with satisfactorily through the ordinary criminal process, and will he undertake that no one will be dealt with under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order unless there is reason to believe that he cannot be dealt with by the ordinary processes of the law?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I give that undertaking completely. As I think the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, a number of people have been charged with firearms offences and other terrorist offences in recent weeks and months. This is a very satisfactory development."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 599.]
What has happened since then to throw such apparent discredit on ordinary criminal procedures in the courts? Is the cause the appearance of the wisdom of the Diplock Report and the recommendations of that report? The House will want to be satisfied that there is more than that to justify what is proposed in the Bill. We shall want a clear statement from the Attorney-General about what has happened in the meantime to call for these radical changes.
While we admire the quality and the industry of those who prepared the Diplock Report, their recommendations do not seem to suffice without abundant confirmatory evidence that what they recommend should come to pass. I cannot emphasise too much that it is vital that the changes required to deal with the emergency situation in Northern Ireland should not be such as to cause loss of confidence in the strict and impartial administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It is imperative that the judiciary should not be or appear to be an arm of the Executive. It will be a deplorable day if that fear and belief develops in any part of the United Kingdom. In several respects, some of the proposed changes in the Bill have gone too far in diminishing the classic protections normally available in our criminal courts to an accused person, and we seriously fear that unless they are amended they could harm the judicial system itself.
I find somewhat ominous the observation on page 5 of the Diplock Report:
It does not fall within our responsibilities to recommend changes in the general criminal law or procedure of Northern Ireland. That would require longer consideration and wider consultation than the urgency of our task permits. It would in any event be better fitted to be undertaken by a more broadly constituted body than ourselves.
It goes on:
This does not mean that changes which we propose for dealing with terrorist activities during the emergency are regarded by us as unsuitable for general application to all criminal offences in normal times.
That kind of approach has caused concern to many of us. We feel that there is long-term danger in the Bill, in that it may prove irreversible and that the Government may be tempted to extend some of these ideas to the United Kingdom as a whole. However, at this stage there is a 12-month limitation and the Bill's provisions cannot continue beyond that without the Government having to secure approval of the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that six months would be a clearer indication of the temporary quality of these provisions.
There is no time to go into the detail of the provisions to alter the criminal procedures of Northern Ireland, but I share the anxieties about Clause 1. I listened with admiration to the eloquence of the


hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) about the jury system of this country. We have traditionally regarded it as the Palladium of our liberties. It has served the citizen well against the tyranny of executive power. The seven bishops must be remembered when it is proposed to give it up, even in conditions of emergency. Indeed, it is a grave step, and I ask the question that has been asked many times today—is the abandonment of this right of the subject justified by the available evidence?
The working of the jury system and the right of challenge in Northern Ireland is a curious and remarkable spectacle to behold. I had the pleasure of undergoing it myself when I appeared some years ago for certain gentlemen in a grave and tragic case when two men were charged with the murder of a police sergeant. My instructing solicitor challenged everyone called Jones, Evans, or Smith, who was presumably a non-Catholic manifestation, while the learned Attorney-General challenged every O'Driscoll and O'Flaherty who was called to be sworn.

Mr. Whitelaw: There you are.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says, "There you are," but, at the end of the day we got a jury, and the jury acquitted—on the evidence in the case. I had little part in it: it was an admirable jury. So I will have nothing said against the juries of Northern Ireland. They served me in very good stead, to say nothing of my clients.
Seriously however, the evidence in the Diplock Report does not justify what is now proposed. What is said in paragraph 35 is very curious and can give the Government little comfort, bearing in mind that they propose that these trials should be conducted by one judge alone.
Paragraph 35 says:
Hitherto serious terrorist crimes … have been all tried by jury. It is fair to say that we have not had our attention drawn to complaints of convictions that were plainly perverse and complaints of acquittals which were plainly perverse are rare. But an important factor in the absence of perverse convictions has been the readiness of the judge in Northern Ireland, even before the present emergency, to withdraw the case from the jury if he himself has any doubt as to the guilt of the accused. This power appears to us to have been exercised in recent months in Northern Ireland much more widely than it would be by any

judge in England. In cases in which it is used its effect is to substitute for trial by jury, trial by judge alone.
I am not quite clear about the thinking behind that, and whether there is complaint that the judge alone is not doing his job in Northern Ireland. If that is the complaint, it is odd that he alone should be given the job in the Bill and that it should be taken from the jury.

Mr. Gardner: Would not the right hon. and learn Gentleman agree that it is quite clear from the paragraph he has quoted that what Lord Diplock and his Committee were saying is that the judge is exercising the right, which judges exercise in this country but not so frequently, to withdraw a case from the jury when he believes that the jury would come to a perverse verdict of guilty?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I do not know whether Lord Diplock means that. If he does, the judge would get into a bit of a mess, as we have seen from a recent case at the Court of Appeal and at the Old Bailey. Perhaps that is the explanation. It may be intelligent anticipation that a perverse verdict is about to be given. It is a very remarkable procedure if that is so. It is a usurping of the jury's function by the judge. I doubt whether that is the explanation. However, there it is.
The end of the matter is that the most that can be said in the report is that
The jury system as a means for trying terrorist crime is under strain. It may not yet have broken down, but we think that the time is already ripe to forestall its doing so.
The House is entitled to be told unequivocally by the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the system has broken down to the point where it is contrary to the interests of justice that the jury system should continue. The interests of justice require concern not only for the fairness of the trial but care to see that serious crime is detected and punished. But the necessary evidence does not seem, to most of those who have spoken on this issue in the debate, to have been forthcoming.
On the proposal that the trial should be by a judge alone, I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It puts too much of a burden on the judge alone. He should


be assisted by two assessors, or there should be three judges to try these issues.
I greatly hope that the Secretary of State's proposal that the death penalty shall go will prevent what would otherwise be an intolerable situation arising of a single judge having to decide a capital offence. But even without that state of affairs, the criticisms that are made in the report of the delays that will occur by a collegiate trial are not sufficient to justify imposing this burden on a single judge. As has been said, if the situation requires the appointment of more judges in Northern Ireland, I and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General know that, fortunately, there are men of competence at the Bar capable of doing the job.
Clause 2 has been much and properly criticised because of the considerable restrictions it imposes upon the granting of bail. After all, presumably there is no attempt to abolish the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.
I do not say that the Secretary of State complained but he said as a fact that bail is granted more regularly in Northern Ireland than it is granted here. I fear the explanation of that is that bail is not sufficiently frequently granted here. We spent a great deal of time on the Criminal Justice Bill seeking to establish certain guide-lines and principles which would result in a considerable extension of the granting of bail in this country. With respect to the Secretary of State he has, for once, got the wrong end of the stick.
In any event the limitations imposed in Clause 2 on the power to grant bail are excessive. For instance, if hon. Members will look at the provisions of Clause 2(3)(b) and (c) it will be seen that the combined effect of these subsections means that a person charged with a scheduled offence may be absolutely barred from bail for 178 days—as long as half a year. The judge has to be satisfied as to the conditions in Clause 2 which says:
A judge shall not admit to bail any such person to bail unless he is satisfied that the applicant—

(a) will comply with the conditions on which he is admitted to bail; and
(b) will not interfere with any witness; and
(c) will not commit any offence while he is on bail."



If he is satisfied on those three matters it seems to me that the bail ought to be allowable without the additional requirements of Clause 2(3)(a), (b), (c), on which the hon. Member for Antrim, North had such a field day. There should also be a right of appeal against refusal of bail by the judge which does not seem to be provided for in the clause.
Alas, time has fled and I do not have the time to examine the disturbing features of Clause 4 which we shall examine in Committee. Clause 5(2) deals with the limitations to the proposal that any confession is admissible. It has to be proved, presumably by the accused, that he was subjected to torture or inhuman treatment to induce him to make the statement. These are grounds for the excusal of a confession. The limitations to this provision have been roundly condemned on all sides.
The uncertainty of the present Judges Rules' in Northern Ireland will be replaced by worse uncertainties in dealing with what amounts to degrading treatment or what will count as proof of it. Is deprivation of food, the wall treatment, forced deprivation of sleep and solitary confinement inhuman treatment? Not according to some of the conclusions of the Compton Report. This will not do, and I am surprised that it was thought that it would do. There is no reference to threats to obtain confessions or to offers of inducements, as many hon. Members have pointed out. This will obviously have to be reviewed fundamentally in Committee.
The language of Clause 6 has already been mentioned. This deals with the powers of arrest without any saving words such as "reasonable grounds for suspicion" which govern the exercise of such powers by police officers in this country.

Miss Devlin: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's arguments I am a little perplexed as to how he can so eloquently and with such principle demolish so completely the arguments from Government supporters and then fail to vote against the Bill tonight.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I thought I had made clear that some emergency powers were needed. In our view this Bill takes the matter too far, and we propose to strive in Committee to eliminate that to which I have endeavoured to object. I conclude


by saying that as far as the announcement made by the Secretary of State with regard to the abolition of the death penalty is concerned, I will certainly support it on its merits and because of the intolerable situation that would flow if the death penalty were retained in one part of the United Kingdom and abolished everywhere else. I will not go into the merits of it now. I will content myself by saying that in all the Western Christian democracies the death penalty has virtually disappeared; and it has been abolished formally in most of the democracies of Western Europe. It is fitting, therefore, that in this year 1973 it should also go in Northern Ireland.

9.31 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I should like first of all to thank the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) for his personal reference at the start of his speech. I am glad that he managed to get in a very considerable "puff" for his own skill with juries, which apparently he demonstrated in that case long ago in Northern Ireland.
I join him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) in devotion to the principle of trial by jury as being an important and indeed integral part of criminal administration in times of normalcy. But in Northern Ireland, as anybody knows who has had much responsibility there over past months, this is not a time of normalcy. The recommendations which are brought forward in this Bill to which we are inviting the House to give a Second Reading this evening, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in presenting it to the House, deal with grave and serious matters all of which need and call for careful consideration by this House when the House takes this Bill, as I hope it will, into Committee.
It is based on the recommendation of the Diplock Commission. The members of that Commission were not—as it seemed to me the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) was suggesting—capricious people. In fact, they examined this matter carefully but expeditiously in the autumn of last year. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, alone went to Northern Ireland,

but he heard the opinions and saw many people in addition to those who came to see the Commission here on this side of the water.
Lord Diplock is not a man who would be slow to uphold the principles of law; nor would Professor Cross, one of the most distinguished legal academics of the present time and a most distinguished writer on the law of evidence. He would not be quick to alter the laws of evidence so as to affect and alter justice or the interests of an accused person. Sir Kenneth Younger, who many of us recollect in this House, was formerly a Minister at the Home Office, and I recollect him many times standing at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition, speaking with great vigour of the civil liberties and interests of the individual. Nor would one think of Mr. George Woodcock—certainly I would not think of him—as a person to be prejudiced over the rights of particular groups of people in Northern Ireland.
These are the people to whom we looked for this report, who made it and presented it to my right hon. Friend. But as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said, it is not only of those gentlemen, their report and their recommendations that this House would care to hear. Perhaps it would care to hear about my personal experience—having had the ultimate responsibility for prosecution and having been directly answerable for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, and for the report, for which obviously hon. Gentlemen have been asking—and as to the impression which I have gained over the administration of criminal justice, particularly in the last few months.
Four matters concern the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Deputy Director and myself—first, the intimidation of jurors; secondly, verdicts and jury disagreements running—I put it no higher-contrary to the evidence; thirdly, the intimidation of the witnesses; and fourthly, the substantial number of cases obliged to be abandoned because of technical difficulties.
I deal first with the intimidation of jurors based on the reports from the area officers of the Director of Public


Prosecutions who attend the courts round the Province in the criminal cases which, when the Bill becomes law, as I hope will be the case, will become scheduled offences.
The following are some of the examples of what we have encountered recently in the courts. There have been visits by the IRA to the homes of a number of jurymen warning them not to convict in IRA cases. There is the case of a garage proprietor, one of a jury which convicted an IRA bomber, who received a heavy sentence. Subsequently that juryman's garage was attacked by bombs three times and finally totally destroyed. It is not unexpected, hon. Members may think, that owners of businesses in the area are now reluctant to serve on juries and, if they do so, reluctant to convict.
There is the case of the UVF man-that is the other side—up for trial where a bomb was exploded in the corridor of a courthouse and one witness had to be kept in police custody the whole time pending the trial of that man.
It is a tactic of both the IRA and the UVF to pack the court with their bully-boys when one of their number faces a serious charge. The effect on the jury, and on the witnesses, of such a packed court and such a packed audience can perhaps be better understood in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland than here in this Chamber this evening. The spectators sitting there, the UVF or IRA, are people who flinch at nothing, for their success depends upon the degree of fear that they can, and do, inspire.
The case was reported to me in Armagh of the IRA men who visited the homes of a number of jurymen and warned them not to convict to such an extent that consideration had to be given to the removal of the whole Assize to Belfast.
In Armagh there were four verdicts of not guilty in cases brought against UDA men. In one case, a man was found in a car with a gun—the result of the case, acquittal. In another case, three men were seen throwing a gun from a car which was being pursued by an Army patrol—result of the case, acquittal. In another case involving the hijacking of a lorry, the cargo was found in a UDA club and the documents were in the handwriting of the accused—result of the case,

acquittal. In another case, a leader of a UDA unit was identified as taking part in the armed robbery of a Post Office— result of the case, acquittal. In yet another case, a man was found with an unlicensed gun—result of the case, acquittal.
These are reports I have received through the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions. These verdicts appear to them, and to me, to be contrary to the evidence.
There are cases where the accused has made a clear admission to the police after caution. There are acquittals and jury disagreements following the assertion by the accused in an unsworn statement from the dock that the admission had been made under duress, with no opportunity to test the truth, by cross-examination because the accused never entered the witness box. Yet that was "accepted" by the jury.

Mr. Duffy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made frequent references to the UDA. Can he tell us why there is no mention of the UDA amongst the proscribed organisations in Schedule 2?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will forgive me, I shall make my speech in my own way as I have a great deal to say and I would welcome the chance to say it.
There are cases in which the validity of an admission of the offence which has been made to the police was not even contested by the accused at the trial. Yet despite such an admission by the accused, and no rebuttal at the trial, the result of the case was acquittal. There are instances, of course, where the accused has refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the court and has made no submission at the trial. These are examples of cases which I say can be explained only as verdicts given in the teeth of the evidence.
The jury system to which we have all been paying tribute depends upon the random selection of men and women who take an oath to return their verdict according to the evidence. That is what they swear. That is the oath binding upon them. There are two reasons for this betrayal of the oath. One is prejudice, or the determination of the jurymen and women to look after their own.


The second is fear. The most common at the present time is fear, but I ask the House not to overlook the first.
Obviously the evidence of intimidation must be hard to come by. Intimidation ensures that it is unlikely that there will be any witness to the intimidation. The whole essence of the crime of intimidation is that it should be carried out in secret and backed by the certainty that the threat will be carried out. Both are equally effective in Northern Ireland today and no one doubts that a threat so given will be honoured.
During the course of the debate some hon. Members have been talking about the selection of juries. Perhaps I should make the position clear. In a criminal trial in Northern Ireland the defence has 12 challenges for each accused person. If there are three or four accused, there could be 48 challenges of the jury by the defence. The Crown stands by only if it is to protect the juror, that is, for instance, if he lives in a disturbed area or if his business takes him into that particular area. Perhaps the House will recall the Derry case of the man with the garage. The area staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions is instructed that religion alone shall not be a ground for challenge and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions personally ensures this in Belfast.
But of course those are not the only risks and apprehensions facing jurors in Northern Ireland. The actual burden is so much greater than in England, however. The Winter Assize Panel had to attend continually from 15th January to 18th March. And the Londonderry Panel will have to serve twice in one year. In England the average period of service is four to five days and perhaps 10 days at the Old Bailey, and it is very rare for a person in England to be called upon again to serve upon a jury.
Unlike England, the majority of civil trials are conducted with a jury and the number of inquests has increased enormously. In the prevailing circumstances the burdens and fears of people in Northern Ireland who are compelled to serve on criminal juries are very great, and unless and until conditions are restored in which a person can return a verdict without fear or favour and in

accordance with the evidence then, as I personally regret, but as I am personally convinced, there must be suspension of jury trial for terrorist offences.
If that is so, certainly the issue whether the prosecution has proven its case so that a verdict of guilty can be brought in by the court will fall upon the judge. The House has quite clearly made its opinion known this afternoon in the speeches that have been made. There is no illusion about what this means or about the responsibility it imposes upon the judges. It will impose a very heavy burden. I see these men daily and I know them to be men of character and integrity applying the law with such rigour against the prosecution and against the Crown in interpreting what they have to interpret, which is the law of Northern Ireland.
They have their dangers, and it has already been pointed out what happened to Mr. Staunton, the resident magistrate in Belfast. He was gunned down. There have been bomb attempts on three or four others of both denominations. In Northern Ireland there are eight High Court and nine county court judges, including the Recorder. According to the Diplock Report the number of judges there makes it impracticable to have trial by a plurality of judges for all these offences.
I listened with great care to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said. But if there are to be five or six criminal courts, as one would hope there could be so that persons could be brought to trial reasonably swiftly, and if there are to be three judges sitting on all these cases, there will have to be a vast increase in the number of judges or the delay of trials will increase to even more than it is with trial by jury. Diplock thought that a system of trial if there is to be no jury is better by one judge alone. The noble Lord Gardiner in another place suggested assessors, but they experience the same danger as, and perhaps even more, than a jury. Of course, there is the procedure of appeal to a court of appeal consisting of three judges.
Sectarian accusations might be made if a judge sits alone. But it has been pointed out that in many cases, particularly in Northern Ireland, the result of a trial


often turns on whether a statement or confession is ruled admissible by the judge. Often on his sole ruling does a verdict turn. In many cases judges have made that ruling and there has been no serious criticism of the senior judiciary. Therefore, I hope that, save in extremist circles, judgments will be accepted. I expect, as did the Diplock Report, that in such circumstances the judge would give, if shortly, the reasons for his verdict.
I now turn to the intimidation of witnesses. Whereas the intimidation of juries is directed to the result of a trial and can be cured by altering the method of trial and dispensing with juries, the intimidation of witnesses is directed to preventing any trial ever being held. I ask the House to bear this distinction in mind. Justice calls for the conviction of the guilty. It is not justice if the guilty are acquitted by an intimidated jury.
In one police division—there are 16 in Northern Ireland—between March 1972 and March 1973 there were 210 armed robberies and 224 hijackings. In the majority of these cases the injured parties stated that they did not want to be involved in court proceedings. Hijacked drivers are frequently warned that they and their families will suffer.
During the past year there has been positive evidence of direct intimidation in 30 cases. I will give some examples from the past 18 months. In October 1971 three company employees were told that they would be shot if they gave evidence. The company's premises have since been twice bombed and are now destroyed. In January 1972 the bus driver witness, Sydney Agnew, was shot dead at home in the presence of his child on the day before the trial of three terrorists. In March 1972 a woman witness received a bullet in an envelope which is believed to have brought on a heart attack.
In February 1973 a witness's shop was severely damaged and looted, and he was told that the attack was a warning. The case had to be abandoned. In March 1973 a person called at the home of the parents of a murdered man, left a bullet, and warned them not to give evidence. In this very month a man declined to identify the man who had stabbed him saying, "I like life".
The intimidation of witnesses and their reluctance to come forward has not decreased. With the rise of Protestant violence it appears to be increasing.
I should remind the House of figures for arrests in the last few months among the majority and the minority of the community, referring to the majority as representing one side and the minority the other. In November 1972 from the majority community only 32 persons were charged, whereas from the minority 56 were charged. In December, 55 from the majority were charged, whereas 60 from the minority were charged. In January 1973, 60 from the majority were charged and only 49 from the minority. In February there was a swing the other way: 89 from the minority and 51 from the majority. In March, 81 from the majority were charged and 98 from the minority. In April, 31 from the majority community had been charged and 35 from the minority. So the situation has altered in the last few months. This is the reason for the gravity with which the situation is regarded by those in charge of criminal prosecutions in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to Clause 2 and those other clauses on which I have been asked many questions. I should tell the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that during the past year 69 persons have absconded when on bail. The security forces, having arrested a person who then absconds, have to engage in dangerous operations to apprehend him again.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that perhaps bail should be granted more often in England. But persons have been released on bail in Northern Ireland who would never have been granted it in England and Wales. At present, there are persons awaiting trial charged with conspiracy to commit explosives offences in relation to the recent bombings in London. They have not been given bail by an English court. There are these opportunities to abscond in Northern Ireland, and that is the reason for the provisions of Clause 2.
The purpose of Clause 4, relating to witnesses' statements is to lessen the effectiveness of the intimidation of witnesses. The bus driver, Mr. Agnew, was shot in the presence of his child the day before


the trial of three terrorists in January 1972. Under Clause 4, his evidence would plainly have been adduced whether he had been murdered or not. It might have made his murder less likely, because it would have been clear that his death would not have prevented the Crown from giving his written statement in evidence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am personally interested in this case and I know the family very well. It ought to be put on record that this gentleman requested protection from the security forces and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was then operated by Stormont, but was refused it. Yet an hour after he was shot his home was put under police guard. Those are the facts and they should be put clearly on the record.

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows, responsibility at that time lay elsewhere. I understand that the murder happened shortly after an inspector had visited Mr. Agnew's home.
Criticism has been made of the attendance proposed. But we are bringing soldiers from Hong Kong who are witnesses in order to give evidence, and we shall continue to bring such witnesses forward. But there is no circumstance of formal binding over. So in Northern Ireland this is directed towards meeting the fear of witnesses who go into hiding and will not come forward at the trial.
Clause 5 relates to confessions. I remind the House that it reflects what the Diplock Commission reported upon. Under the rules of the High Court in Northern Ireland, confessions must be voluntary to be admissible. In England the Judges' Rules were changed in 1964 but they were not changed in Northern Ireland. There, where there had been interrogation in a detention centre even where it did not involve torture or inhuman or degrading treatment—no wall standing, no hooding, no noise—a subsequent statement made voluntarily was held to be inadmissible because it had been tainted by the earlier questioning that had been made in the absence of a caution. The layman might well consider that second statement a voluntary admission, but the Northern Ireland courts held that it was not.
It could be that in the course of interrogation in the detention centre an

inducement was given to the suspect to tell what he knew. Under Clause 5 the prosecution can give the statement in evidence unless the accused can show that he was subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. If he does that, his statement is excluded. If it is admitted, the judge will consider all such matters as inducements or threats, and these will clearly affect the weight he gives to the statement. Of course, threats could make it wholly worthless. But the admission of a confession need not lead to a conviction. The court could well decide that the confession was false or worthless. The reference to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment reflects Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There have been 55 abandoned cases, nolle prosequis, in Belfast since the beginning of 1972, mainly because of the inadmis-sibility of confession statements.
Clause 6 deals with possession and onus of proof. The hon. Member for Belfast, West, admitting that he is not a lawyer, spoke of the shift of the burden of proof. It has shifted in the Explosive Substances Act, in the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the Coinage Offences Act and in the Theft Act. It is nothing novel. In 39 cases, somewhere explosives were discovered in a house which was shared by several people, prosecution had to be abandoned or there had to be an acquittal. None of such people had to give any explanation, and so they were all acquitted. Yet the explosives and the firearms were there. As the Diplock Report says, it is not tolerable that the scales should be weighted so heavily in favour of guilty men. That is why the new clause is to be introduced.
I give the House an undertaking that we shall not revive cases where a nolle prosequi has already been entered in respect of those matters dealt with in Clauses 4, 5 and 6.
Mention has been made of the lack of remedies open to persons who claim that they have been ill-treated by the security forces. There are 150 civil claims against the Crown and 39 cases have been settled by plaintiffs accepting payment.
There have been directions for prosecution against 37 members of the security forces on charges of bodily harm, 62 cases of unlawful shooting, malicious


damage and larceny, and there have been the ordinary motoring offences.
Finally, in my gallop through this substantial Bill on which I should like to have had more time to present my comments more coolly and slowly, I turn to that part which deals with detention of terrorists. Those hon. Members who see in it something evil I remind of the view of Lord Gardiner—he is not a man lightly to ignore liberty—that every State has a right, which is recognised in Article 15 of the European Convention, to take measures derogating from its obligations. That is what has been introduced by the detention of terrorists. It is not internment, and it is not the procedure which was so fancifully described by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
As a member of the learned profession I would not refuse to be searched. Indeed, I have been searched. I have had my brief case opened in the Royal Courts of Justice. I see no reason why I should not be searched, and I see no

reason why any other member of my profession should not be prepared to be searched. In 65 cases defence lawyers have participated and there has been no trouble.

These matters are not determined by executive act. Independent professional judges will consider matters put before them. They will ensure whether the persons who are brought before them, from both communities, are persons who should be detained in the interests of the peace and security of the Province. Anyone who has borne any responsibility for Northern Ireland in the last few months knows this to be essential.

Draconian as these measures are, and alien as they are to many of us, I nevertheless support my right hon. Friend in saying that they are necessary.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 18.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (OATHS AND DECLARATIONS)

11.38 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 603), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.
The House will recall that in paragraph 64 of the recently-issued White Paper on Northern Ireland the Government made clear their intention to provide, in the constitutional Bill which has yet to come before Parliament, that the Northern Ireland Assembly might not impose upon any member of an appointed body or upon any person paid out of public funds in Northern Ireland the requirement that that person should take any form of oath or declaration except when such oath or declaration was required in comparable circumstances in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The House now knows that the local government erections in Northern Ireland will take place on 30th May. Quite obviously, with a Bill of such importance as the constitutional Bill there is no possibility whatever of its passing through all its stages in both Houses before the date of the local government elections. For that reason the Government undertook, in the White Paper, that in the meantime an Order in Council would be presented amending existing Northern Ireland legislation so as to bring it in this respect into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in time for the local government elections. The order that I am now moving represents the fulfilment of that undertaking. Incidentally, it is for this reason, too, that the order has been presented under the urgent procedure. It is necessary to remind the

House that the last date for nominations for local government elections is as close as 2nd May.
It will probably assist the House to see how necessary it was for some action to be taken one way or another if I illustrate briefly the effect of the present law in Northern Ireland in connection with local government reorganisation, taking the law as it is at present.
For example, the Area Education and Library Boards, which have already figured in our discussions, are only partially constituted at present and, therefore, consist wholly of nominees appointed by the Secretary of State. After the local government elections the remaining 40 per cent. of the places will be taken up by persons appointed on the recommendation of the district councils. But if we do not amend the law, the 60 per cent. appointed by the Secretary of State would not have been required to take an oath, while the 40 per cent. working alongside them would have been required to do so on election to their respective councils. Or again, it is broadly true to say, although I am not being precise, that in local government service in Northern Ireland clerical and administrative workers are required to take an oath while manual workers are not. That is not an exact statement of the law, but I am not being misleading if I state it that way.
As a result of local government reorganisation, a considerable number of such manual workers will be transferred from the employment of the local councils to the employment of the Government, for example, through the Ministry of Commerce. So if the law is not altered, a considerable number of manual workers, doing precisely the same job as they have always been doing, will find themselves subject for the first time to the requirement of making an oath.
For all these and many other reasons, the Government thought it best to abolish the requirement over the whole field except, as I have already made clear, where such a declaration is required in comparable circumstances elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I should, perhaps, draw attention to the oath as it will be applied to new members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, they will still swear to serve the


Sovereign, but the order provides for the removal from the oath of references to the Government of Northern Ireland.
I realise that it is possible to take different views of this comparatively modest measure. For some it is removing an irritant which is not imposed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, for those who want to see the same standards apply in Northern Ireland as apply in Great Britain, this is one more example of bringing practices into line in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman rather than seeking to make a speech later. When the hon. Gentleman is finishing his speech, will he indicate the type of oath which might be required for Members of the Executive when they are elected to the Assembly? This does not come within the bounds of the order, but it would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's thinking, although they have not yet formulated the oath.

Mr. van Srraubenzee: I was just finishing my speech, as the hon. Gentleman, being keen eyed, observed. The answer is "No". I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but it would be more convenient if he were to await the public cation of the major constitutional Bill, which clearly must deal precisely with this matter. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is not a matter contained in the order.
For the reasons I have set out, I commend the order to the House.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House is no doubt grateful to the Minister of State for his explanation of the order. We are embarking on consideration of yet another order under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. Unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I did not comment on that matter in our previous debate tonight. That was because I thought that some comments from me might be appropriate at this stage of our proceedings.
As the Minister said, the order is presented under the urgency procedure. We discussed that some days ago. I shall not detain the House on that matter now, except to comment that the urgency procedure is a constitutional foreign body. It means that this measure is effectively law before the House discusses it and irrespective of whether we approve it. If no complaint is made tonight about the urgency procedure being used, the Government should not take that to mean that this can operate as a precedent. This is a procedure which should be used only where it can be justified because there really is urgency. Normally the House will look to Ministers for an explanation of why it is used on any particular occasion, even though on any such occasion the House may not be in a mood to view that explanation very critically.
It is worth remembering that there is now a vast amount of legislation, the birth of which was by this Caesarean procedure. Certainly a great deal of the time of the House has been spent in the last few weeks on Northern Ireland legislation. This week we have had two Bills, one of which went through all its stages in one day, and three orders. Before this week those who have done some arithmetic for me tell me that there has been a total of 34 pieces of legislation —Bills and orders—since the passing of the Act. There are others still to be dealt with. There is the main constitutional Bill and the job discrimination measure. Possibly before the Assembly meets there will have been about 50 Bills and orders passed by this House.
We are wearing ourselves out in the process. Yet all the orders are dealt with in this unsatisfactory way. Perhaps this is a further good reason why the Assembly should come into existence as early as possible. I hope that some of the discussions which take place in the Assembly will mean that the discussions which would otherwise take place here in the small hours of the morning may at least be dealt with by way of reference.
This is not an unwelcome measure to this side of the House. The principal enactment which is repealed is the Promissory Oaths Act (Northern Ireland) 1923. That measure was passed because the authorities were confronted with a situation where a substantial minority


of the population clearly did not believe in the regime. It was felt necessary to have a test of loyalty for those engaged in the public service and in the teaching profession. As an observer from the touch-lines I take leave to doubt whether the Act ever achieved its purpose. An oath excludes, by its nature, only the scrupulous and honest. They would probably have carried out their duties loyally anyway, whatever their personal views.
Those who are prepared to take an oath in which they do not necessarily believe, if they exist, clearly will not be excluded by the requirement of the oath. We welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that this requirement operates chiefly as a rather purposeless irritant. I believe that since the passing of the Temporary Provisions Act no measure has included this requirement.
I have two questions. Presumably from what the Minister said there are certain office holders who will continue to be required to take some oath. I am not quite sure whether I spelled this out from what the hon. Gentleman said but perhaps he can confirm that the position in Northern Ireland, if the order satisfies the House, will be exactly similar to the position in the remainder of the United Kingdom and in the words of the White Paper there will be no requirement to impose an oath upon anyone
save when such an oath or declaration is required in comparable circumstances in the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that when a person is elected to a local authority in this country he has to make a statutory declaration before the town clerk? In this order, instead of keeping to what was proposed in the White Paper, we are going a step further. The reason given is that for elected representatives we must get rid of the oath for local government.

Mr. Archer: I should not dissent from that. I have never understood the function of the oath in local government in the rest of the United Kingdom. Clearly I should be going outside the rules of order if I were to develop that argument. But I am not worried by what appears to be the anomaly which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. van Straubenzee: Perhaps I might be allowed to assist. We must be careful about terminology. It is purely a matter of fact. I was directing my remarks to oaths. The act to which reference has been made is a declaration of acceptance of office, if we are to be technical, which is contained in the appropriate schedule of the particular Local Government Act. That declaration remains in Northern Ireland and is not amended if the House agrees to the order. In other words, those elected to local government in Northern Ireland will be on all fours with those who are elected to local government in England and Wales. They still make a declaration of acceptance in terms which are set out in the appropriate Act.

Mr. Archer: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for that clarification. The anomaly which I said did not trouble me apparently is not an anomaly at all and therefore could not have troubled me.
May I take it that the hon. Gentleman confirms what I substantially asked— that in relation to any specific oath now required in Northern Ireland a similar oath would be required in comparable circumstances in the remainder of the United Kingdom?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is a fair question. However, I must draw attention to the fact that there is a slight difference in the words. In the oath taken by a constable in Northern Ireland he still undertakes, as he did before, not to belong to any association formed for a seditious purpose. That is slightly different from the English form of oath. Otherwise it is on all fours with it.

Mr. Archer: I am again grateful to the Minister for pointing that out so fairly, as one would expect of him. I do not think that many constables in the rest of the United Kingdom belong to seditious organisations, so it is possibly an academic point.
My second question concerns intention. May I ask the Minister whether he can arrange for the order to become widely known? If it is approved, the public and the teaching services in Northern Ireland will be open to some who would serve loyally but who had previously objected to taking the oath and therefore


had not applied to join either of those services. It is important to ensure that there is no problem here of what, in the social services, is called non-take-up—a situation where an enlightened provision lies concealed from those whom it is intended to help.
This is a welcome measure. We on this side of the House hope that it will receive the attention and response that it deserves.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I should like to take up the point about which the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has been speaking, and that concerns the way in which the order has been introduced and presented under the emergency procedure. It has already taken effect and the House is therefore debating something which is already law.
That is a deplorable way in which to abolish a system which has been in operation for 50 years. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he wanted the oath applied in Northern Ireland only where it was applicable in comparable circumstances in the rest of the United Kingdom. I may be wrong about what he said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but surely the Members of the new Northern Ireland Assembly could make the same declaration, as paraphrased by my hon. Friend the Minister, as the councillor or alderman undertakes, that is not to belong to any association formed for a seditious purpose.
One regrettable feature of these orders is that they cannot be amended, even by the Minister at this stage. The Minister used the phrase that the oath was an irritant to some people in Northern Ireland. But presumably Republicans from Northern Ireland who are elected to this House must find the oath they take here objectionable. If that argument about avoiding irritation is applicable to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it must also apply here. Does that mean that we get rid of the oath in this House? I do not think that hon. Members will accept that argument. When an hon Member takes that oath he understands that he is taking on a solemn and serious duty and it is a ceremony which he undergoes conscious of what it means.
An oath of allegiance does not make people loyal who are disloyal, people who are secretly working for the destruction of the State. It excludes only the scrupulous and the honest. The same can be said of oaths generally in the United Kingdom. Some people would not wish to take the oath falsely and others would take the oath yet would be disloyal.
We must consider the oath in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland. The taking of such a solemn oath was important in 1920 when the two new States of Ireland were both determined to establish their separate identities. It today clearly reminds the person who is required to take the oath that he cannot lightly dismiss the undertaking he has given, and it emphasises the importance of the duty he is taking on. Of course, if an oath is falsely sworn, it brings the whole ceremony into contempt. I accept that. We would all deprecate anyone taking an oath falsely.
I do not accept that in the circumstances existing in Northern Ireland the oath of allegiance should be abolished. As we know from cases in court, people take oaths in Great Britain and do not abide by them. But that is no argument for the abolition of oaths throughout the United Kingdom. Just because some individuals who are taking on responsible jobs wilfully perjure themselves, why should we condone their calculated conduct by removing the oath altogether for the positions set out in the order?
Many responsible people in Northern Ireland—not just politicians—will consider that the order is one more example of appeasement of the Republican element, whose demands have increased with insatiable greed. These have been increasing since 1968, and every time we have given way to a demand it has been followed by a fresh demand.
The order is not an isolated case. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to require that Members of the new Assembly should take the oath of allegiance which is taken in this House by the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). If peace were restored in Ulster, I would urge that we should require an oath of allegiance only when it was required in the rest of the


United Kingdom. But peace has not been restored, and I think it essential that the Government should not be seen to be giving way to the Republican demands.
School teachers are included in the schedule. Concern has been expressed in this House over the years about the extreme left-wing or Communist or Maoist political philosophy expounded by some school teachers to students in Great Britain. I have heard complaints about it by my right hon. and hon. Friends, although perhaps such complaints have not come from Opposition Members.
In Northern Ireland, school teachers exercise even greater responsibility because, if they so wish, they can be the purveyors of hate to young minds eager to absorb new ideas. We want to put an end to such inculcation of hate. Too many young people involved in the streets, throwing stones at soldiers, have been brought up in hate, and we must try to stop it. School teachers can, if they wish, inculcate hate into the minds of the young they are teaching. As a Unionist, I do not wish to see the divisions which exist among adults perpetuated in the schools. That is why I have always been in favour of the abolition of segregated education.
It is worth remembering that a greater number of school teachers were interned in Northern Ireland than members of any other profession. There must be something in that simple fact. Apart from those interned, a number of Republican teachers have appeared in the courts on criminal charges. Only a few months ago, a Republican school teacher was blown up near Strangford together with a girl pupil when they were making a bomb. No doubt he had taken an oath of allegiance.
Nevertheless, I believe that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland feel that the oath of allegiance should be retained and certainly in the emergency situation wish to see that we do not seem to be giving way to the Republicans. What a horrifying picture appears of the dangers to which the minds of schoolchildren are exposed when teachers are engaged in such action and involve their pupils in these extremist actions.

Mr. Peter Archer: Since the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has given the answer to his own argument—

namely, that the teacher involved had taken an oath—does it not follow that the oath is no answer to the problem he mentions?

Mr. Kilfedder: I said at the beginning that anyone who wished to be disloyal would be disloyal even after the taking of an oath, but at the same time, the very ceremony of taking an oath and speaking those words means that some people will feel bound to respond to that oath of allegiance or declaration and it is important to keep it.
In ordinary circumstances, when there is peace in Northern Ireland, let us have the oath only where it is applicable in the rest of the United Kingdom. But in an emergency situation as exists today in Ulster it seems that we are giving way to another Republican demand, and that is another reason why I think the oath should at present be retained.
I shall close with an example. A Mr. O'Hagan, who is now on the headquarters staff of the Sinn Fein organisation in Dublin and who, I think, acts as their publicity officer, was appointed as a lecturer in English at Stranmillis College which is 99 per cent. Protestant—almost completely Protestant—merely because Roman Catholics are expected by the hierarchy to train in their own voluntary teacher training colleges. Friends of mine at Stranmillis have expressed amazement that a man like O'Hagan could be appointed in view of his criminal record during the 1952–56 IRA campaign of terror, but he was appointed. Someone must have known his record and that he had been convicted in the courts. Yet he took the oath of allegience.
This is one of the unscrupulous people, but it is an example of what we, in Northern Ireland, are up against. While I accept that it is an argument for doing away with oaths in Northern Ireland, and indeed is an argument for doing away with them throughout the United Kingdom, it is a deplorable state of affairs. In my humble opinion this order is an indication that once again the Government are prepared to appease the Republicans in Northern Ireland.

12.8 a.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I want to put on record that I am wholly


opposed to the order. There is a great deal to be said for the view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) on the general question of oaths and whether an oath or an affirmation of allegiance means anything much, except to those who intend their allegiance. One knows of Members of this House who have said that they have taken the oath of allegiance in a sense which they did not mean.
That, of course, is not the question at issue in this business. The hon. Gentleman argued to my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that because someone took the oath of allegiance and then committed some crime which was contrary to that allegiance, then the oath of allegiance was of no value. There is equally an argument for saying, "Why take the trouble to abolish it. What will abolition of the oath of allegiance achieve?—nothing at all". According to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, it will make no difference.

Mr. Peter Archer: My argument was that, if it served no purpose, it would be better to remedy it because it was an irritant.

Captain Orr: The hon. and learned Gentleman now comes to the nub of the problem: why are the Government removing the oath of allegiance? They are removing it, he says, because it is an irritant to some people. Why is it an irritant? It is an irritant because it troubles their consciences. They are troubled because they are taking office under the Crown to which they do not intend to owe allegiance. That is the reason why the oath of allegiance should be kept and not abolished. If it deters one person from taking an office which demands allegiance that he does not intend to carry out, then the oath of allegiance ought to be kept. If it is an irritant, it at least prevents somebody from taking office on a spurious oath of allegiance. If it is not an irritant and means nothing at all, why bother to abolish it?
What the Government are trying to do is to make it plain that they are willing to involve people in responsible offices in central and local government, in the teaching of children, in the Royal Ulster

Constabulary, in important positions under the Crown—people to whom they are willing to say, "We know that you do not owe allegiance to the Crown."

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think my hon. and gallant Friend made a slip of the tongue. Members of the RUC will swear allegiance to the Sovereign.

Captain Orr: I am afraid that was a slip of the tongue. There is a wide section of people, particularly in local government, who are supposed to serve the community under the Crown and who are assumed to owe allegiance to the community as a whole. The order places on record the Government's view that it is possible for people to undertake those important tasks under the Crown without owing allegiance to the Crown or to the State.

Mr. Kilfedder: I suppose my hon. and gallant Friend would agree that even though a police officer took the oath of allegiance, he could also be unscrupulous, and the argument could be advanced that that oath could be abolished in respect of allegiance. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would like, as I would like, to have an undertaking from the Government that that step will not be taken in due course by Order in Council.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The point I am making is that this is not just the removal of some sort of irritant or of something that does not mean very much at all. It is said, "Let us put it all on the same basis as it is in Britain." It is curious how this House will use the argument to those in Ulster, "Let us be on all fours with Great Britain" when it suits the situation to have something similar, but then when it comes to PR it is said, "No, you are rather special people. You are to have PR though you loath and detest the idea. But we ourselves shall not accept it because it is foreign to out ideas." When it comes to something as fundamental as taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown which binds together this Kingdom, the House is willing to say "You must surrender the right."
I tell the Government, this order will do serious damage in Ulster. It will lower


morale, it will destroy confidence in the Government. People there will say that this is yet another concession to violence. It will undermine all the good the Government have tried to do with the White Paper. It will act as an irritant the other way because those who value their allegiance to the Crown and are proud to take the oath will suddenly find the demand not to take the oath an irritant very much more deeply wounding than any irritant involved in taking the oath. This is a wholly wrong and wholly bad order and I want to put on record that I wholly disapprove of it.

12.16 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We in this House are now learning, slowly but surely, the act of folly that was done by this House in doing away with the democratically elected House in Northern Ireland. We are learning that we cannot legislate properly for Northern Ireland simply by taking away the House of Commons there and proceeding by Order in Council.
Of course, I quite understand the irritant caused to hon. Members, many of whom resent the fact that Ulster Members should keep this House sitting until a quarter past midnight. I know that in the Lobbies they are saying, "Bother these Ulster Members; we want to go home. We are sick and tired of this." But they glibly walked through the Lobby. They brought this situation on themselves, and upon their heads be it. When we discuss this matter we representing Northern Ireland find ourselves at a great disadvantage because we cannot alter one iota of any of these orders. We can express an opinion—and I pay tribute to the exceeding courtesy that has developed among all the Ministers for Ireland.
It is quite a feat to be a Minister for Northern Ireland because one can become so gracious, kind and gentle with opponents in every part of the House, but, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said, there is not a crumb of comfort at the end of the day. When the Secretary of State for the hon. Member, but …". The same Northern Ireland was Leader of the House he was so gracious in the way he said, "Of course, I would like to meet

has developed at Stormont Castle—"We would like to meet you all, but …" and it is in this law that we have the "but".
We may smile and it is good, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will agree, that in Ulster people can still laugh among all our troubles, but the matter we are discussing is very serious. If we are to argue that we should do away with the oath, we should be consistent. We should then say that the oath is an irritant and is in many ways meaningless—I am trying to state the argument which has been put—and that because people do not believe in the oath they take, therefore let us abolish it.
I come now to one area which has resulted in more controversy than any other. I refer, of course, to the police. Everyone in this House has been asking why the minority cannot join the police force and why the Royal Ulster Constabulary cannot become an across-the-spectrum police force, so that everyone may be in it. But, with respect, if this House tells a Roman Catholic school teacher that because the oath is an irritant to him it will be removed so that he may teach without taking it, how can it then say to a Roman Catholic wishing to join the RUC that the oath should not be an irritant to him?
Anyone coming to this House, whether he be a member of the Labour Party, a Unionist or a Republican, has to take the oath of allegiance. In fact, this House has a history of controversy about the taking of the oath. On one occasion, a person who denied the being of God remained for a long time on the other side of the Bar of the House until finally he was allowed to slip in and make a declaration in order to take his seat.
I am happy about one aspect of the order, and only one. It is that in future the police will not be asked to swear allegiance to the Government of Northern Ireland. That was a definite irritant. I do not believe that anyone should be abliged to swear allegiance to a Government. After all, Governments change. I do not owe allegiance to this Government or any other. But I owe allegiance to the Crown, and I am happy to take that oath of allegiance, seriously and honourably. But I quite understand people saying that they do not want to


swear an oath of allegiance to the Government of Northern Ireland. Looking at the composition of some of the Governments which we have had, it would be a most unwise step to take. But the oath of allegiance asked of the people with whom the order deals is no different from that which we take in this House.
If it is argued that the oath of allegiance should be abolished because it is an irritant, it could equally well be argued that the one reason why Republicans cannot take their seats in Parliament, assuming that they are elected, is that they refuse to take the oath. There was once a Republican elected in Mid-Ulster who was unable to take his seat because he would not take the oath of allegiance. In Stormont, Mr. Harry Diamond tore up a piece of paper on one occasion and said that that was what he thought of the oath.
If unscrupulous people use the oath to further their own ends, on their heads be it. That is their responsibility. But the majority of people of Northern Ireland are quite happy to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. They do so because they feel something. This is the point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Captain Orr) tried to make. Whether the Minister believes it or not, it happens to be the fact that the steps now being taken by the Government seem to be designed to undermine the will and wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. It seems that the majority are to get nothing. They are not to be considered. But the agitation from the minority has always to be heeded.
Some may say that this is not true, but one cannot destroy this feeling among the people of Northern Ireland. The ordinary man in the street will say, "At Westminster, they have torn up the oath of allegiance." This will react grievously against any proposals for the better peace and good government of Northern Ireland.
If these people say that the oath means no more than a piece of paper which they can tear up, let them. There are other urgent matters which we should discuss, and we waste time on something which will not help.
We are told that this order must be rushed through because of the district elections. I understand that a councillor makes a declaration in this country. With that declaration in Northern Ireland goes an oath of allegiance. In future, someone elected to a district council will have to swear only to discharge the duties of his office faithfully.
We are also establishing the precedent that the governing body of Northern Ireland will have no oath of allegiance. The Minister hopes that, as soon as possible, important powers with regard to the government of Northern Ireland will be devolved on the Assembly. If I am elected to this House to take part in the government of the United Kingdom and to speak for people in Northern Ireland, it is demanded of me that I take the oath of allegiance. If Republicans said that they would not take the oath, they would not be admitted to the House, and would therefore not draw their salaries.
We are saying that those elected to the Assembly do not need to take the oath either. The man in the RUC who did not want to take the oath could well feel that he was being discriminated against; his obligation would soon be seen as an irritant too and also removed. Tonight, it is possible that we are on a slippery slope.
Northern Ireland will see this as a retrograde step.
I am told that, under old legislation, which was mirrored in Northern Ireland, people had to take an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United Kingdom. I do not believe in swearing an oath of allegiance to a Government or Parliament, but an oath of allegiance to the Queen and her successors is important. By removing that obligation at this time and in these circumstances, we are not helping the situation in Northern Ireland.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Minister sighs a little when I rise.

Mr. van. Straubenzee: I did not sigh. I look forward to what my hon. Friend will say.

Mr. McMaster: I wonder where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is at this hour. After all, it was his decision that we should debate three orders tonight, after two long days on Northern Ireland business. The House decided that it would take on the responsibility. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that after more than a year's experience he was beginning to see the defects of providing that the House should legislate for Northern Ireland.
When the Parliament in Northern Ireland was suspended in March last year we took on the job of legislating for Northern Ireland. It is an odd way to legislate. We are now considering an important provision which I, as a Member for Northern Ireland, cannot amend. Such procedures have been going on for about 14 months. What is to happen in the future? I am somewhat confused.
We have been debating constitutional Bills for Northern Ireland. We are told that they return some form of legislative power to Northern Ireland, and that therefore there is no need to increase the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. Yet a little later we are told that the new body for Northern Ireland is not to be called a Parliament of Northern Ireland, that it is just an Assembly, and that its Members are not to take an oath of allegiance. We are told that it is rather like a county council, and that we are to go on legislating in this unsatisfactory way at Westminster on those matters that are not to be entrusted to the new Assembly. Will this Assembly be at Stormont? Where will it be set up? I agree with my hon. Friends who have already spoken that the present arrangements is totally unsatisfactory. After more than a year, we must be able to deal more democratically with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
My friends—five of us on this side and two on the Opposition side—representing one and a half million of the citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland, are legislating on three important matters for Northern Ireland in a totally unsatisfactory way, when the House and its servants are obviously exhausted. We cannot apply our minds properly and efficiently at this

late hour to three major measures. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) wishes to intervene, perhaps he will not do so from a sedentary position. I would willingly give way to him. I have been waiting to hear a contribution from him on the important matter we are discussing.
1 should like my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify one small point for me. He seemed to say that in local government there is no difference between the position in the United Kingdom and the position as it will be in Northern Ireland, and that a declaration rather than an oath is taken here. But he seemed to qualify that, because he referred to an oath which is taken in Northern Ireland. Is an oath taken by members of local government in Northern Ireland, or do they simply make a declaration? Is there a fundamental difference between the position as it has been in Northern Ireland up to now and the position in the United Kingdom? What is the significance of my hon. Friend's referring at one minute to a declaration and a little later qualifying that reference by saying that there is an oath that applies in Ulster and does not apply in Great Britain?
The schedule refers to seven Acts, each of which incorporates an important tradition in Northern Ireland which should not be summarily dispensed with tonight. I should like to hear a little more about the oath which is taken, for instance, under the Belfast Water Act. Why will those who have served up to now as water commissioners, and who have taken an oath in that capacity, suddenly no longer be required to subscribe to the oath?

Mr. Kilfedder: Does not my hon. Friend's experience of the Belfast Water Board agree with mine—that the oath has never prevented any Republican from serving on the board, just as the oath never prevented a Roman Catholic from joining the police force up to 1968, when the numbers went down? One-third of the police force was composed of Roman Catholics—and we welcomed them.

Mr. McMaster: I take that point. This is the first time during the debate that it has been suggested that the reason


the oath is being dropped is that one section of the community resent subscribing to it.

Mr. Peter Archer: If the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that the existence of the oath has never prevented a Republican or anyone with Republican views from serving on the Belfast Water Board, for instance, will he say what is the function of the oath?

Mr. McMaster: This is a fundamental matter. Surely the reason for introducing the order is not that we believe that the oath has prevented people from serving on public bodies. As I understand it, the reason is to bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain, not because the Government believe that the oath is a bar to certain people serving. If that is so, an entirely different light is shone on the order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the issue is not that the oaths are an irritant or that the Government believe that they have been a bar to people serving on public bodies. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) pointed out, the Government's attitude is, "The single transferable vote is good for you in Northern Ireland, but it is not good for the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the oaths must be the same in Northern Ireland as they are in England and Wales and in Scotland."

Mr. McMaster: We are getting to the essence of the matter. Let us assume that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is right in saying that the Bill is a concession to the minority. Here I agree with the comment in the Diplock Report that it is incorrect to speak of "the Roman Catholics" and "the Protestants" in Northern Ireland. It would be more accurate to refer to the Unionist and the Republican side. If it is an irritant because the Republicans, who form only a small part of the Roman Catholic population and an even smaller part of the Protestant population, are barred from serving on these various boards, then the Minister should have said so. He should have made it clear that that is why the order was being debated tonight.
If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend merely wishes to bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, one is entitled to ask why the order has been introduced at this late stage not only in the evening but in the period during which the House has been legislating for Northern Ireland.
Would it not be better to leave this matter to be dealt with by the new Assembly in Northern Ireland so that it can find out the wishes of the people there? Why should not the new Assembly, which is to be elected in June, voice the opinions of the people in Northern Ireland and decide whether to retain these oaths?

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had not intended to enter into this controversy, particularly after listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The hon. Gentleman suspected that some of our English colleagues were waiting in the corridors and wishing that all the Ulster Members would go home. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that sentiment is held not only by some of our English colleagues. I am desperately waiting to see some flagging of energy among hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have so vociferously opposed the order.
The oath was regarded as an irritant by a certain section of the community in Northern Ireland not so much because they did not owe any allegiance to the Crown as such, but because throughout the history of Unionism the minority group felt that the Protestant community was the dominant one and that those in the minority were regarded as second-class citizens.
In this part of the United Kingdom the Union Jack is accepted by everyone as the flag of the country. No one pays any particular attention to it, except when there are international rugby matches. But in Northern Ireland the flag of the United Kingdom was not regarded as such either by the Unionist majority or by the Catholic minority. It was regarded as a party political symbol of Unionism, and it was stuffed down the throats of its political opponents at every opportunity.
The same thing happened with the oath, and it is not realistic, in 1973, to have the situation that a labourer working for a local authority or for the Ministry of Agriculture at a low wage is expected, with due solemnity, to take the oath of allegiance before he can dig a ditch and be paid a small wage for doing so.
The oath and the Union Jack were used in Northern Ireland as a symbol of rampant Unionism. That is why so many people in Northern Ireland were offended by having to take the oath, and regarded it as an irritant.
In their White Paper proposals the Government are attempting to do away with some of the greater defects that Northern Ireland society has had to live with. The Bill this afternoon was not to my liking. I do not believe that it will help to bring together the two Northern Ireland communities, or in any way ease the tension. But this order seems to be an attempt by the Government to ease the situation. We can see that by the opposition put forward by Unionist Members, who know very well that the oath and the flag were great irritants to people who were not out-and-out, rabid Republicans—people who did not think seriously about the question of allegiance but who certainly knew one thing; that they did not want the oath and the flag stuffed down their throats at every opportunity.
I commend the Government on intro ducing this order. I was opposed to the legislation that passed through the House a few hours ago. On that occasion some of my hon. Friends and myself, in defiance of our own party Whip, went into the Lobby and voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. If Unionist Members are sincere in their opposition to the order, let them carry their opposition into the Lobbies.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Wait and see!

Mr. Fitt: Let them vote against the order and see how ridiculous it will make them look in the eyes of every reasonable person in the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Even if a person in the House voicing his own opinion is in a minority of one it should not make

him a fool in the eyes of the world. I am always prepared to say what my view is. I tell the hon. Member that on many occasions he has been in the minority and on many occasions I have been in the minority—and he should not argue that on those occasions we have made fools of ourselves. His hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was the only Teller to turn up for a Division, but that did not make him a fool.

Mr. Fitt: I say that to the vast majority of people throughout the United Kingdom this debate is about a non-event— a non-issue. Reasonable people in this part of the United Kingdom do not lose a night's sleep or have to take tranquillisers because they are so concerned about taking the oath, whether they are school teachers or farm labourers. The people are more sophisticated than that.
The argument was advanced rather heatedly by the hon. Member for Antrim, North that to abolish the oath—as has been done, because we are now talking after the event; it is a fait accompli— would mean that thousands of people in Northern Ireland would be marching through the streets and protesting. He implied that the people of Northern Ireland would bitterly resent the fact that they were no longer allowed to stuff the oath down the throats of their political opponents. I do not believe that anyone in Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland will lose any sleep because this order has been brought before the House.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: I noticed several hon. Members, mainly from Northern Ireland, with some of their colleagues, particularly those from this side of the Channel, running round shaking their heads and saying what a dreadful thing it was that they should be kept here at this hour. In fact, I heard some of them use words that would be described by Mr. Speaker as unparliamentary. I am deeply saddened that they should lose any sleep, but it is a small measure of the sort of thing that the army they have sent to Northern Ireland is doing to thousands of people every night. For all we know, hundreds of people in the Falls Road and other areas cannot sleep tonight because Saracen armoured cars are passing


their doors. If hon. Members have to lose a few hours sleep because they dictate that orders will be discussed at this late hour, that is too bad. One has little sympathy for them.
I raise only one point on the order. I preface that point by saying that I am pleased enough that at long last this ridiculous oath business has been dispensed with. But perhaps the Minister of State would comment on a situation which arises from the removal of the oath.
In the very recent past I have had occasion to fight tribunal cases arising from these oaths. My most recent case is still in the pipeline. It concerns a young man who applied for a job with the drainage department of the Ministry of Agriculture. His first duty was to leap into a ditch, up to his knees in water. Before he did that, a lady arrived in a car. She said, "Before you can leap into that ditch, you must sign this oath of allegiance."
It was a cold morning. The young man, all things considered, said, "I am not all that fussed about you and your oath". The matter gets more serious. The lady said, "That is too bad". The young man lost his job. He lost more than that, however. He was barred from receiving unemployment benefit for six weeks. He had no income of any sort for the subsequent six weeks.
That young man came to see me, and we fought a tribunal case on the basis that he was wrongly treated. But we did not succeed. For six weeks he had no income because of an oath which has now been abolished.
For a young man in that situation, and for many others in similar situations recently, is there any possibility of recompense for the moneys that would have been due had the oath not existed?

Mr. Kilfedder: When seeking advice from the hon. Gentleman on this issue, did the young man say, "Should I have followed your example?" Did the hon. Gentleman explain that he took an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and this House when he subscribed his name on the roll of Members? This was something that the young man could also have done in a minor way, and it was not objectionable.

Mr. McManus: No, the young man did not do that, but he was well aware of the fact that I have taken such an oath. The point is that in his case he was deprived of six weeks' income. It is not a joking matter. Over the years, many people who have taken a stand on principle on this issue have been debarred from employment. If after gaining employment there has been a delay of a few weeks in the administration of the oath, when confronted with it not only have they lost their job but the Ministry concerned has ensured that they subsequently lost six weeks' unemployment benefit.
Will the Minister indicate that there is a possibility that persons in that category will become entitled to unemployment benefit for that period?

12.55a.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: We have had a useful and full debate. The House has not heard any complaint from me about the lateness of the hour or the time being taken. We have another important and particularly humane order to come which I hope the House will approve. I recognise that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have every right to raise serious points on such an occasion.
I respond positively to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). He is quite right in saying that the Government ought to use the urgency procedure only when the matter is truly urgent. It could be misused. I hope he will accept that it was not done without careful thought. When I remind him that notice of election in respect of the local elections will probably come up in about two or three days and that nomination forms will then be available, he will, I believe, accept that this was genuinely an urgent matter.
He asked me about publicity and I think he will like to know that the order has already appeared in a Press release which has received a good deal of attention. I have had letters welcoming it from two of the teachers' organisations—teachers have been specially mentioned—one of which is in no way sectarian. This cuts across sectarian boundaries. I will naturally explore other ways of making this as widely known as possible.
My hon. Friends the Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked again about councillors. It is important to get this absolutely right. My hon. Friends will probably find it helpful if I give the reference. It is to be found in Schedule I of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. This is the declaration that a councillor will take in Northern Ireland and it is to the best of my understanding exactly comparable with that taken by councillors in England and Wales. It reads:
I… having been chosen Councillor for the District of … hereby declare that I take the said office upon myself and will duly and faithfully fulfil the duties thereof according to the best of my judgment and ability".
This is a declaration which I took when I was a member of a local authority many years ago.
It used to go on to say further words which were an oath of allegiance and it is those further words which have now been removed in respect of councillors. It brings Northern Ireland into line with the remainder of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have explained the slight difference in the oath which is still taken by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is not on all fours with the remainder of the United Kingdom but very nearly.
I must avoid the blandishments of various hon. Members who asked me to talk about whatever form of declaration it is that may be taken by Members of the Assembly. It is clear that the White Paper envisages there being no oath. It does envisage an appropriate form of oath for members of the Executive. This is a matter germane to the major constitutional Bill. We must await the publication of that Bill. There must be time to discuss these matters with great care.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) asked a question about a detailed point. If he will write to me with the details of the case I will gladly have it examined. I am sure he will understand that I cannot, without the details, give him an answer now. In general, my immediate answer would be that whatever the law was at the time that the application was made—I understood the hon. Gentleman

to refer to unemployment benefit—that would be the correct law and that situation would not be altered by a subsequent variation or alteration in the law.
That is my short and immediate answer to the question. I must not and do not raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes that there will be some kind of retrospective payment on the basis of what the position would have been had the law been different from what it was. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman will send me the details of the case he mentioned I will gladly have it looked into.
Again, I have not dealt with the broad argument. I do not think I should assist the House by repeating that argument. I put it as succinctly, yet as appropriately, as I knew how. I do not think that I can improve on what I said in opening, save only that this matter needs to be looked at in the broader concept of the settlement towards which I hope we are moving in Northern Ireland rather than as a single step on its own and in isolation. It is part of something bigger and must be dealt with separately by the House—that is right and proper—but in a week when we have been seeing movement towards new institutions in Northern Ireland, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will look at this proposal constructively as part of a broad settlement, not merely on its own.
On the basis of the words with which I introduced the order, may I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my hon. Friend give way? I did not wish to interrupt him earlier. I want to pay tribute to him for the patience and courtesy that he has shown to the House. At the same time I should like to record my protest at the behaviour of some hon. Members who have wandered into the Chamber and objected to the way that Ulster Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Interventions should refer to the order.

Question put,
That the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 603), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved: —

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 3.

Division No.110.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst. Alan
Neave, Airey


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Havers, Sir Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley


Blaker, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw Anthony
Peel, Sir John


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Percival, lan


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgewater)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Crltchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, MaJ.-Gen.Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lane, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dixon, Piers
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, G.B.
Longden, Sir Gilber
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, lan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
McNair Wilson, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fowler, Norman
Mathen, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Soref, Harold


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Stokes, John




Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Waddington, David
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Tebbit, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene



Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Marcus Fox.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Tope, Graham


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Wellbeloved, James


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.



Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Miss Bernadette Devlin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marsden, F.
Mr. Frank McManus.


English, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Stallard, A. W.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[1.3 a.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Goodhew, Victor
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Clegg, Walter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Concannon, J. D.
King, Tom (Brldgwater)
Weatherill, Bernard


Cordle, John
Knox, David



Eyre, Reginald
McManus, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Fortescue, Tim
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Oscar Morton.


Fowler, Norman
Raison, Timothy



Fox, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)





NOES


Kilfedder, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Mr. Stanley McMaster and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Rev. Ian Paisley.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (YOUTH SERVICE)

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
I sometimes think that when we are considering all that is involved in the rebuilding of Northern Ireland after the ravages of these last few years of violence—violence which, I am thankful to say, has been markedly unsuccessful in bringing the life of the Province to a standstill—one of the most important parts of the rebuilding process will lie in the field of youth. Obviously, tonight I cannot discuss that in any depth but I commend this order as one of the steps, although I emphasise only one, by which we shall make increasingly effective provision for the young in recreation and in youth services.
The House will see that it imposes— and I repeat "imposes"—upon the new district councils to be elected on 30th May a specific duty to secure the provision for their areas of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities, and it gives the councils power to maintain the facilities and to co-operate with others in their provision and maintenance. I emphasised a moment ago the word "imposes" because this contrasts with the present powers of local councils, which are permissive only. This was a point commented upon appreciatively by the noble Lady Baroness Serota in another place.
The local councils will not necessarily have to provide all these facilities themselves. They can do so, for example, in co-operation with the voluntary organisations, and I stress that because the Government attach much importance to the voluntary organisations.
Perhaps I should say as an aside that the order does not itself provide for what is to happen in the event of a council's not fulfilling its obligations. I hope and believe that this is a purely academic point but, in case any hon. Member takes the point, there are in fact general provi-

sions in the Local Government Act 1972 which give the Ministry of Development power to take action where a council fails to discharge any of its functions, and that would apply here, of course.
The House also knows that under the reorganisation proposals for local government in Northern Ireland youth welfare, which is at present a function of the local education authorities, will become a specific responsibility of the new education and library boards, which will also have duties in the recreational field. Quite obviously I make this point here because there is the possibility of some overlap.
The boards will be involved as education authorities and will be providing recreational facilties in buildings intended primarily for school use. I am thinking, for example, of a recreational centre attached to a school or a swimming bath within the curtilage of educational buildings. The co-ordination will be carried out by the Ministry of Education assisted by the Sports Council and by the Youth Committee. In this way I hope and really do believe, having looked closely at this, that we can both co-ordinate provisions throughout Northern Ireland and avoid overlap.
I accept that it will be necessary to ensure that district councils have adequate financial resources to enable them to carry out the duties which the order places upon them. The House will know that present legislation prescribes a maximum of 65 per cent or, in the case of the acquisition of land, 75 per cent. to the rate of grant which may be paid by the Ministry of Education to local authorities in respect of their approved expenditure.
The House will see that Article 10 of the order, while continuing the provision for the payment of grant by the Ministry, does not specify a rate or impose a maximum. This is because a new system of district and regional rates is being introduced in Northern Ireland as part of the local government reorganisation, and we felt it better not to specify a rate of grant in this order until we have had experience of the new arrangements.
It may be helpful, however, if I say that I anticipate that in the early years at least grant will be paid at the same levels as at present. In these days of greater specialisation and increasing cost


it may on occasions be desirable to provide a regional centre for general sports purposes, for example in connection with a particular activity, or even possibly on an all-Northern Ireland basis. Article 9(3) enables a district council with special approval to provide such a facility.
The Sports Council which will be set up under the order will not only have the duty of advising the Ministry and other bodies on sports and physical recreational matters generally and of encouraging participation in, and the provision of facilities, but will itself be responsible for providing assistance to voluntary organisations in respect of their expenditure, for example on administration, coaching, participation in international events and the provision of equipment. It will have power to employ staff and to carry out functions relating to sport and physical recreation, functions which have in the past been carried out by the Central Council for Physical Recreation.
The proposals, which are long-standing ones, have been discussed with the Sports Council in Great Britain, and the Ministry of Education in Northern Ireland has given assurances about the taking over of staff in Northern Ireland. In turn it has received assurances of close liaison between the Northern Ireland Sports Council and the Council in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the Northern Ireland Council will benefit greatly from access to the much greater resources and experience of the organisation in Great Britain just as in former years the Northern Ireland section of the Central Council for Physical Recretation was able to do.
The order also envisages the appointment of a Youth Committee by the Minister for Education, and it will be seen from the schedules that the Minister in both cases is obliged to consult appropriate bodies before making the appointments. It will be seen, too, that contact between the two bodies will be maintained among other ways through the fact that the Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman of the Council will be members of the other body.
I have little doubt that there will be others who will serve on both bodies.

They, too, will provide a link between the two services. I have already made clear the importance which the Government attach to voluntary organisations in this field and as one who, with many other hon. Members, has service behind him in such voluntary organisations, I should be the last to underestimate their importance.
The order continues to provide the support now given by the Ministry to such organisations. Voluntary sports and youth organisations will be able to obtain grants both on capital and recurrent account either from the Ministry of Education or from the Sports Council. I hope that in due time it will be possible to transfer to the education and library boards the sole responsibility for assisting youth clubs with their recurring expenditure. I see this as strengthening the links between the education boards and the local youth organisations. This would, of course, still retain the Ministry's responsibility for capital grants, which I envisage will remain with the Ministry for as long as we can foresee.
This change, if it is made, can be made within the terms of the present order, but I want the new boards to have a chance of finding their feet before making any such change. If I were responsible in any way I should want to make such a change only after consultation with all concerned.
I opened by stressing the importance which the Government attach to the provision for the young people of Northern Ireland. Such provision is most certainly not awaiting Parliament's approval of this order, important as it is. There is in hand a comprehensive programme for the provision of indoor sports centres, leisure centres, swimming pools, playing fields, youth centres, youth clubs and centres for outdoor pursuits or field studies in Northern Ireland. The estimated expenditure on capital schemes in the period up to 1978 is expected to be about £14 million.
There are seven major schemes planned for the new Belfast district. Work is in progress on one of the indoor sports and leisure centres outside Belfast— namely, at Craigavon. Swimming pools have already been provided at Lurgan and Portadown. A major indoor sports centre at Antrim opened soon after


Christmas. I recently visited the site of a leisure centre which is planned at Londonderry, which will cost £650,000. I merely give some examples to show the very substantial expenditure in capital terms which is being made available to this most important work. I believe that it will be assisted by the advances set out in the order, which I now commend to the House.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The order was debated in another place on 10th April. Perhaps we might avail ourselves of that fact and not ask questions which have already been answered. I am thus enabled to be as brief, as I think the House might wish after the labours of the last two days.
I begin by echoing what my noble Friend Baroness Serota said in another place when offering congratulations to the Government and particularly to their draftsmen in relation to Article 9, which was mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State. We could not have wished for anything more vigorous and positive than the following words:
Each district council shall secure the provision for its area of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities ….
I understand that Sir Patrick Macrory's Committee on local government recommended that that responsibility should be laid on district councils. It is pleasing that it has been so clearly and en-forceably imposed as a responsibility and placed in the order so positively. That will no doubt be welcomed by all the most energetic and progressive councils.
One notes, too, the wide scope of the activities contemplated. That is not obvious from the order itself, but it is clear from what the Minister said and what was said in another place. Not. every young person, particularly at present, wants to participate in a disciplined sport with rigid rules. It is pleasing to hear that these provisions are intended to include such activities as adventure facilities such as those available at Fally-more in the very attractive setting of the moors.
I would add one hesitant note, without detracting from anything that I have already said. I was a little troubled by

the provisions for the appointment both to the Sports Council and to the Youth Committee as set out in Schedules 1 and 2. This provision says that the Minister may appoint:
… after consultation with such persons as appear to him to represent district councils, education and library boards",
and, in the one case, participants in sport and recreation and in the other case voluntary youth organisations.
That provision should be used imaginatively, but, like the Minister, I have had experience both of the organisational side of sporting activities and of youth work. One knows how establishment-minded even the bodies representing those activities can become. Certainly, this is capable of being a formula which could generate a somewhat establishment body.
There is no institutional method of ensuring imaginative appointments. That must rest with the Secretary of State. I certainly do not suggest that it should be a positive qualification for appointment that the appointee should never have had any experience of public service, but I hope that there will be some appointments from those who are young enough actually to participate in athletic activities or youth work. Since that description could apply to me may I say at once that I mean those who can participate without constantly having to augment their waning powers?
This is a golden opportunity to bring energetic young people into responsible consultation, to have them working together with the authorities and not against them, feeling that there is something for them in the whole system of public administration and accepting a stake in the community, along with the responsibilities which go with it. This is a good and imaginative scheme and I welcome it, but I hope that it will be as positive in its operation as it is in its conception.

10.28 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Once again, we are dealing with an Order in Council which should have been a Bill, in the normal course of events, at Stormont, and the kind of thing that one would have hoped, if the White Paper proposals were to come into being and operate as the Government fondly hope


they will, would come before the new Assembly.
After two days' debate on Northern Ireland problems, one cannot come fresh to this matter and deal with the sports and youth services of Northern Ireland in the way in which this should be done. I would merely reiterate the point made so often every time this procedure is used—how thoroughly unsatisfactory it all is.
In the Bill with which we have just finished, there were provisions for pretty Draconian methods of dealing with young offenders. We now consider a measure which at any rate purports to be positive in dealing with young people, cannot give it much more at this time of night. If any young people from Northern Ireland happen to be in the public gallery, they will find it very strange that we deal with the matter in this way.
In introducing our attitude on the matter, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State one fundamental question about it. I was surprised that he did not touch on this. Why is it necessary to have two bodies? Looking at the structure as a whole, and all the various bodies involved in it, it seems a very cumbersome and bureaucratic method of dealing with the problem. As I understand it, there was formerly a Youth and Sports Council, which paragraph 8 abolishes. At one time the functions—which may not have been the same functions—were administered by the same body. My hon. Friend might have told us about this fundamental matter and why there should be two bodies. It still seems possible that it could have been done under one body. This course seems to proliferate the number of people to be appointed.
I take up the important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). We ought to hear from the Minister of State what he has in mind on the method of appointment to these bodies. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right when he said that we want the right kind of people to be appointed. I do not like the idea of leaving appointments solely in the hands of a Minister.

even though we put upon the Minister the duty of taking advice from certain bodies. I am not sure whether a better method could not have been devised We might have produced a council or two councils which were more representative of interests. We might have had some form of representative council. All kinds of difficulties are involved in this.
If the order had been a Bill, this is one of the matters on which we could have tabled a series of amendments from people closely interested in it. We could have had a proper argument. Out of the Committee procedure we could have found a sensible method of appointment to these bodies. We would have had the chance of various voices coming through. There is a great deal of wisdom in our Committee procedure. We cannot have that tonight. All that we can do is to ask my hon. Friend for his opinion. The order is not capable of amendment.
On the general question of finance, my hon. Friend talked about the £14 million capital expenditure. I am not sure of the period about which he was talking— whether it was capital expenditure already undertaken up to date, or proposed expenditure of £14 million in the current year.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It might be convenient if I made it clear that what I said—as I hope HANSARD will reveal— was that that figure is an expenditure figure on capital schemes in the period up to 1978.

Captain Orr: That puts a slightly different complexion on what I thought that it was. I was about to welcome it warmly if it were for the current year. If that is the provision up to 1978, plainly it is not very great in the context of what has to be done in Northern Ireland. This matter ought to be examined again.
My hon. Friend said nothing about the rate of grant except that it was the intention that in the early years the grant would remain at the same levels as at present. I hope that I understood my hon. Friend correctly in that respect. Again that does not strike me—if we are making provisions for recreational facilities for youth—as a very imaginative or generous approach. I would have thought that there was ample reason, in the light


of all that has happened in Ulster and in the light of the concern about the youth of the country, for us to have at least a small percentage rise on present levels. My hon. Friend might say something more about that in replying.
A positive duty has been laid upon the district councils. What will happen in the meantime? There are no districts councils now and there will not be any until October. After that the councils have to begin their work. It seems that not much work can be done upon this measure until next year. I wonder whether my hon. Friend envisages a standstill in the meantime, or is the intervening period to be used for making plans and thinking about things? We shall support the order but we would have wished to have a proper debate and an examination of the whole somewhat cumbersome process.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks too closely, except to say that I can see the reason for having separate Sports and Youth Councils, if only because of the difference in ages of the people with whom the two bodies are likely to deal. My attitude to this order is similar to that of the hon. and gallant Member. I welcome it but doubt whether it goes far enough.
I am not sure how far the Minister is au fait with the development of the Youth Service in this country. It is already something of an antiquated affair. More and more authorities are developing youth and community services. The two services are being integrated. The order would have been better if it had set up such a service. We could then have investigated the possibility of establishing community schools in which the youth service could be based. There is also the possibility of a family-oriented service, when all the family, mother, father and children, could attend community centres which would include facilities other than simply those for youth. That has certain economic advantages. In the context of Northern Ireland there might also be social advantages. The order is doing something that is necessary but it does not go far

enough. It is a model for the 1950's rather than one for the 1980's, which is what we ought to have had.

10.40 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to record yet again my protest about the procedure for bringing important business relating to Northern Ireland at and in a manner which does not permit at the end of the day by Order in Council of amendments or a Committee stage.
We are dealing with matters of the utmost importance. I become extremely bewildered when I study the orders placed before the House. If Members of Parliament are bewildered—I realise we may not be credited with much intelligence— I wonder what the long-suffering community in Northern Ireland must feel when they find important legislation brought before the House in this way.
We heard a lot of talk yesterday about not being able to trust the proposed new Assembly in Northern Ireland with security. It is apparently not to be trusted with the Youth and Sports Council. The order, in Article 6, provides:
The Sports Council shall prepare and transmit to the Ministry an annual report on the exercise by the Council of its functions and the Ministry shall lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament.
One House has no official representatives from Northern Ireland. There may be a few Northern Ireland people who have been declared redundant and, like Caesar, buried in the House of Lords, but there are no official Members. The Prime Minister has never approached Members of the Ulster Unionist Party, which is associated with the Conservative Party, for nominations for the other place.
What is more, this House, which has 12 Members from Northern Ireland, is to have a report which should be the concern of the proposed new Assembly for Northern Ireland. That report should be laid before that new Assembly which will have a direct interest in and association with the people of Northern Ireland.
I am amazed that we should have this order before the House of Commons. Surely this is a matter with which the new Assembly could be trusted. I realise that sport in Northern Ireland has at times a political and religious flair. It


may be feared that it has what in Scotland is known as a Rangers-Celtic confrontation. It may be fear of that which keeps the Minister here tonight waiting for the order to be approved.
The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), whose contributions to Northern Ireland are appreciated, has mentioned the important part that district councils are to play. The idea of the Macrory Report was that the district councils' functions should be tied into the old Stormont Parliament. Now that there is no old Stormont Parliament, may I ask whether the Government have changed their thinking? Are they proposing to tie in the working of the district councils in these areas to this Parliament, not to the proposed new Assembly? This would be a very interesting policy change. I adduce this from what is written into the order.
Another point concerns accountability. We never get satisfaction in this House. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is on his own. He has joined Sinn Fein. We ourselves alone see the accounts of the departments in Northern Ireland. I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the old Stormont Parliament which was going into some extremely interesting matters that called for investigation. When Parliament was prorogued, of course, that committee was also prorogued. I have never heard of the Public Accounts Committee of this House or of any hon. Member from Northern Ireland in this House having an opportunity of questioning the expenditure of the money we are voting for the forwarding of the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Article 5(3) provides:
The Comptroller and Auditor-General in the discharge of his functions under paragraph (2)(b) may examine any accounts of the Sports Council".
Is that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in this country or in Northern Ireland? It is not clear in the order. Will he be responsible for this? In paragraph (3) it says:
The Comptroller andAuditor-General in the discharge of his functions … may examine any accountsof the Sports Council …

and in the next paragraph
The Ministry may confer on an officer appointed by it to audit the accounts of the Sports Council such rights of access …
to books and documents and so forth. It does not say "The Ministry shall". It says "may"—and that is very important. There is no obligation on the Ministry to see that this takes place. These are matters that could well be ventilated in Committee and probed into.
I was especially interested in the valuable contribution by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith). In Northern Ireland there is a Community Relations Commission. It is not mentioned in the order. It is run by people who are opening recreational centres and dealing with matters concerning sports facilities in the various districts of Northern Ireland. But there is no mention in the order of how community relations should be related to the Sports Council or to the Youth Committee.
The Minister told us that £14 million was to be spent up to 1978. Will he also tell us when that £14 million began to be spent? Was it when direct rule took place? He mentioned a swimming pool in a certain town, but that pool was opened a long time ago. I should like to know how far the £14 million goes back. He told us that there were certain proposals in the Belfast area. Will he spell out what those proposals are?
Many years ago the people of the Shankill Road inaugurated a fund with a view to opening a youth centre in the district. They collected a large sum of money which is now invested. This is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and I am certain that he knows a great deal about it. The money is invested in the interests of the Shankill YMCA, because that particular body had difficulties with it finances. The people who collected the money decided that the Shankill YMCA should have the benefit of the interest.
The people of the Shankill Road have been in touch with the Ministry and the community relations body. They are interested in the property that is available on the Shankill Road with a view to opening it up for the benefit of the children of that area. Anyone who knows the


Shankill Road knows of the housing redevelopment programme there. The trouble is that when housing is demolished, the young people, who have nowhere else to carry on their sports activities use dilapidated places that have certain dangers. What progress is being made between the people who started this on a voluntary basis, the community relations body and the Northern Ireland Office? It would be most helpful if we could hear something about it.
I was interested to hear what the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton had to say about outdoor adventure centres. This is an important matter. What has happened with the negotiations which were taking place between the education committee of Belfast City Council and Antrim County Council about the establishment of such a centre in my constituency? I understand that these proposals have been under consideration for some time. I understand, too, that the people of Antrim —rightly so—would be more interested if the proposed outdoor adventure centre were to be for the children of the area in which it is placed.
The order is very important. I can see the point of setting up the Youth Committee and the Sports Council. But the Secretary of State should understand that in Northern Ireland there is some resentment about the way appointments have already been made to other bodies, and that resentment is not confined to one side or the other but is general throughout the whole community. It is questionable whether certain people who have been appointed are acceptable to the whole community.
Schedule 2(1) says:
The Youth Committee shall consist of the chairman of the Sports Council and such other persons as the Minister, after consultation with such persons as appear to the Minister to represent education and library boards …".
Surely the people to be consulted should be the members of these boards. I do not know why the provision should be so worded. Why does it not say, "Such persons who are members of education and library boards and voluntary youth organisations"? This provision gives the Minister very wide power. Why is there no provision, for example, whereby the Assembly will have the right to appoint certain people? The same applies to local councils.
What sort of liaison will be there between the district councils, the Youth Committee, the Sports Council and the Commission on Community Relations? I have uttered many criticisms of the Commission but it is at least attempting something. Some of the remarks made by some of its members have not been optimistic about the future but one cannot blame them when they are dealing with the every-day problems that are arising.
Paragraph 9 says:
Each district council shall secure the provision for its area of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical, and cultural activities and for that purpose may, either alone or together with another district council …".
Hon. Members should remember that there are to be different rates in Northern Ireland—for example, there is to be a district rate for district councils. Is the money for the purpose of paragraph 9 to come in full or in part out of the district rate? Paragraph 9 goes on to say that each district council shall
provide, or assist by financial contribution or otherwise in the provision of, leaders for such activities; and
defray or contribute towards the expenses of any persons taking part in any such activities.
Will the Minister now tell us what proportion of the money will come from the district council? Will it come from the district rate or from a contribution made by the Ministry to the district?

Mr. Frank McManus: I am most interested in this aspect. Does the hon. Gentleman not take it that this money would in some way come out of the £14 million which has been mentioned? If it does, a small arithmetical calculation would show that each district council would have the large sum of slightly over £100,000 to provide these recreational facilities, and £100,000 will not do a great deal—or is this to be supplemented from the rates? These matters should be clearly spelt out, I agree.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot say whether the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct, but I appreciate that it is an important point. The more one looks at these orders, the more one is concerned. I am glad that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) is here, because in these debates we have not had


spokesmen from his party. I should like to see them all because then the place would be packed. I welcome the fact that he is here. His contribution is valuable.
These are some of the things on which we could have co-operation, could raise interest and could get some unity. There is always unity among Opposition spokesmen when they join to get information out of Government:
A fellow feeling makes one wondrous kind".
Can the Minister tell us the financial arrangements which are to be made? I think that part of the £14 million would come in, but that would be small. The provision of a swimming pool requires a colossal amount of money. In my constituency a swimming pool has been provided recently in Ballymena. How much of that was granted and how much was granted for the pool in Armagh earlier?
All of us interested in the young people of Northern Ireland are interested in this order. I should like to see the young people of Northern Ireland devoting their minds to facilities which can be given to them to make them strong, healthy and clean and to take their minds away from the acts which soil and scar the body politic in Northern Ireland, and so lead forward to that day which we hope will not be long in coming when we can get back to peace, prosperity and progress and which Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain will enjoy once again.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: When the sum of £14 million is mentioned as an allocation it sounds quite a large amount, but when one divides it in any reasonable way, taking it up to 1978, it is less than £3 million a year. One reasonable way to divide it would be by the number of the district councils which are to come into being—26. Then it is £100,000 for each district council per year. It does not take a brilliant economist to realise that one will not provide many facilities for many people with that sort of money. I ask the Minister to see whether there are ways and means of increasing the global sum so that something meaningful can be done in each area of operation.
I wish to draw attention to paragraph 9 which says that:
Each district council shall secure the provision for its area of adequate facilities …and for that purpose alone may …
(c) assist, by financial contributions or otherwise, any person to establish, maintain and manage any such facilities … ".
The Community Relations Commission has been mentioned, and I have in my constituency the town of Coalisland— which, incidentally would not vote for any hon. Member opposite and which was described by my predecessor on one electioneering occasion as a whirlpool of Republicanism—which is undoubtedly a socially-deprived area. I recently made representations to the Community Relations Commission to see whether grants could be made available for the establishment of a youth recreation centre. I received the somewhat strange answer that the town, because of its small size, could not qualify for grant. I was told that it would set a dangerous precedent if Coalisland, as a small community of 3,000 or 4,000 people, were to receive grant because it would mean that other small towns would want grants. I pointed out—in vain as it turned out—that there are not all that many towns in Northern Ireland with populations of the size of Coalisland's.
If the scheme is not to become operational until October when the new district councils become fully operational, will the Minister undertake to look into this point immediately? It is a long time until October and we probably have a long, hot summer to go through.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The marching season.

Mr. McManus: Yes, it will be the marching season. Therefore, it would be advantageous in the meantime for youth in this area and in similar areas to have some sort of facilities. Since representations have made, and since there is an organisation willing and able to undertake the task, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see whether he can find a method of providing facilities for places such as Coalisland before there is any hold-up over who should be appointed to what body, and all the rest of it.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I have for a long time advocated the


amalgamation of the Ministry of Community Relations with the Ministry of Education. This order is evidence that there is a great need for administrative unity and I go along with what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I will leave it at that because he put the point very succintly.
I cannot help feeling a little bitter when I see immense sums of money being poured into the provision of youth facilities in the Falls, the Ardoyne, the Shankill and Londonderry City. I know that these are areas of special difficulty and that some degree of priority has to be given to provision for them, but I feel strongly that if we are not allowed to make similar provision throughout North Ireland we are likely soon to be faced with the problem of youthful violence, vandalism and contempt for authority which has caused so much concern elsewhere.
I make this point strongly and sincerely to the Minister. Young people throughout the Province away from areas of commotion and riot will feel that the only way for them to get money for the provision of sports facilities, indoors or out, is to engage in widespread violence and generally to make nuisances of themselves. That is not what we want in Northern Ireland. We are all united in trying to confine the violence and trouble to certain limited areas, but it seems that the policy of this Government—I say this fairly and squarely to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—is to funnel a great deal of money into certain areas. This causes great concern to many ordinary people in Northern Ireland who are not even mixed up in politics.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Member aware that a Bill was sponsored in the Stormont Parliament which referred only to grants of money for urban areas and when an attempt was made to widen the extent of the Bill to cover rural districts this was "hammered" by the Stormont Government? Is he aware that it is because of that decision that these grants are being made? I agree with the hon. Member completely, especially as I represent a rural area. I have the same problem in relation to Bush Mills as he has with Coalisland

In asking for provision of sports facilities I have met blank wall opposition.

Mr. Kilfedder: I welcome that intervention and go along with what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said. I hope that the Government will take note of these remarks and not just say a few kind words. The Minister of State speaks charmingly, so charmingly that when he says "No" it almost seems like "Yes", but what we want is reality. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
I can speak of the sad situation in my area. I ask the Minister of State, how much of the £14 million has been spent in North Down since the suspension of Stormont on providing facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities referred to in this order? My hon. Friend knows my concern about four youth centres which have been in the pipeline since 1968, having been deliberately proposed after careful consideration by County Down Education Committee as essential for the welfare of the young people under its jurisdiction. Those youth centres were to be established at Glastry, Donaghadee, Comber and Ballynahinch.
What is the Minister's attitude? I took a note of his glowing words. He spoke about generosity but that money is not going in any great degree to the rural areas. He talked about "very substantial money" being provided "for this important work". He described the order as one of the steps by which we shall make "increasing provisions" for the young. What has he done in North Down? The Government have said "No" to these youth centres which the County Down Education Committee in its wisdom considered vital for the young people. The Minister should realise that people will look carefully at his words and see what, in fact, the Government are doing.
Despite all the grand talk by the Government about the amount of money that they are providing on youth sports and youth centres in Northern Ireland, these four youth centres in North Down are still way down in the list of the Government's priorities—

Mr. van Straubenzee: Mr. van Straubenzee indicated dissent.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister denies that, but I have his letter indicating that there is a list of priorities, that these youth centres to which I have referred must take their place, and that they are certainly not top of the list. I go no further, but I think in his letter he places them low down on the Government's list of priorities. Their position in the list of priorities is not tested by merit or need but by other tests.
The social needs legislation and youth and welfare schemes are meant to provide benefits for all young people in Northern Ireland. But, in practice, it is those areas where troops have been stoned, spat upon and sworn at which benefit most. Is it any wonder that the law-abiding taxpayer becomes angry when he sees riot and commotion rewarded and peaceful communities put at a disadvantage?
There is a grave need for sports and youth centres in North Down. More and more young people in my constituency are getting into trouble with the police. They are not getting into political trouble, or stoning the police and soldiers, but they are getting mixed up in ordinary crimes. Often, they go round in gangs because they have not the facilities which would take them off the streets and allow them to let off steam in a reasonable way. It might be interesting some day to get the figures of young people in North Down who in the past few years have been convicted of ordinary crime.
Writing to me on one occasion, the Minister pointed out that public swimming pools have been provided in Bangor and Newtownards. But they have existed now for a few years. More facilities for sport should be provided both in Bangor and in Newtownards. Facilities there at present are inadequate for a rapidly growing population. There is a crying need for sports and youth centres in the area between Saintfield and Hillsborough, right across to Newtownards and down to Comber and Ballygowan. People there need—

Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman wants all the money.

Mr. Kilfedder: That is not true. What I demand on behalf of my constituents is a fair share of the money. That is not unreasonable. I will fight for my con-

stituents' rights. I should like to see the Minister publish, assuming that he cannot give details tonight, just how much money has been allocated to sports and recreational facilities and centres for young people throughout the various constituencies in Northern Ireland. Then we shall find out just how much money has gone to certain areas. That will be the test. That does not take into account the splendid work which the Army has been doing in Republican areas, trying to provide facilities for young people who from time to time respond by stoning them. But if I went off on that tangent I would soon be called to order.
In the Ards area in my constituency, an area of scattered villages, we need a small public swimming pool at Kircubbin. Otherwise, the young people have to go Newtownards, with all the danger of getting into trouble there.
Then there is the extension scheme which was proposed for Glastry Secondary School, which is a central area in the Ards and would provide facilities not only for the pupils of that school but for those from other schools, for Roman Catholics as well as for Protestants, a youth club which would benefit the area. I regret that my hon. Friend, in his reply to what I regarded as my reasonable request on behalf of my constituents in the Ards area, said that this was not possible.
It is interesting to note the history of the Glastry Secondary School extension scheme. It was originally a three-part scheme consisting of an extension to the school proper to cover the raising of the school leaving age, and the addition of a youth wing and a learner swimming pool. But, because of financial restrictions at the time, I think in 1968, the school was not allowed to proceed with the scheme, except for the extension. The other two proposals were put back. Although the extension was proceeded with, a further extension is now needed.
This is an example of what the people in the rural areas throughout Northern Ireland have to put up with. I give this example because it is from my own experience. I have been pressing for more youth centres for a long time, but I have got absolutely nowhere with the Ministry of Education and my hon. Friend. Much as we welcome his charming words, they are no comfort for the mothers and


fathers of young people who get into trouble and are sentenced to periods of detention or borstal training. His words are no comfort to these convicted young people who are perhaps then on the slippery slope downwards into greater trouble, causing greater expense to the nation.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Had my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) been well enough to be in the Chamber, I might have asked whether the Minister could stretch this measure to permit some assistance to be given to the drumming clubs which flourish in that county. Could some assistance be given to ease the burden of rates of buildings other than schools used in part by youth organisations?
The widespread use of the motor car has altered the social pattern throughout the countryside. As a result, village halls and parochial halls are finding it difficult to keep going, because their letting value has dropped alarmingly, to a point at which they ceased to be self-supporting. I know that in certain circumstances various forms of grant are given, but might it be possible to provide assistance rather more in keeping with the sums of money that the House is discussing?
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the ambitious plans for sports centres. But, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) rightly said, they will be mainly sited in towns —fairly sizeable towns at that. They need to be supplemented by much smaller centres, if necessary improvised and adapted centres in villages and scattered communities.
Will there be enough flexibility in the scheme to permit assistance to be given to the provision of facilities for mentally-handicapped children? I think, for example, of the swimming pool at Mucka-more Abbey, which was provided by voluntary effort and subscription. It cost about £50,000, and the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Hospitals Authority and the Ministry of Education found it impossible to contribute from public funds. Could that kind of deserving case be included in future, without strings attached? All involved in looking after the welfare of mentally- and

physically-handicapped children would welcome that.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: With the leave of the House, I should like to do my best to answer, in the time that the procedures of the House allow, the many points raised in the debate. I must not be tempted to go into the wider questions of those procedures. I will simply say that a good reason for having the White Paper is to move on from them. We all hope that after consultation, and upon the terms of the White Paper, there will be an Assembly and an Executive, so that we can return to some form of normality. I am not trying to uphold it as being other than an interim process.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for his general welcome for the order. Certainly if I have anything to do with it—and for the moment I suppose that I shall, as it is unlikely that appointments will be made before the Executive is appointed—I shall attempt to be adventurous as well as conservative.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has already heard how I run into difficulties. He heard my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) lambast me for some of the appointments to some of the area boards. The reason is that we have gone outside some of the "establishment" figures to have a certain breadth of appointment and so on. Then I get stick from my hon. Friend for having people who in his view are unacceptable. That means that some of them are adventurous. Time will tell whether they turn out to be the right people. It is appropriate to have some of the established figures, people who have given devoted service, and we shall want carefully to consult the representative bodies concerned, but it will be a great pity if we cannot also go outside them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked "Why two bodies?" The first answer is that the present Youth and Sports Council, to which I pay tribute, has found that in practice it is easier to work in two groups. Secondly, the Sports Council has different functions from the Youth Committee. Thirdly, there is a Sports


Council in Britain, and it makes obvious sense for there to be liaison.
My hon. and gallant Friend and hon. Members opposite were a little less than welcoming to the figures I was talking about. I hope that they will work them out in terms of population. If we on this side of the Irish Channel were able to have the same provision, our mouths would water.
My hon. and gallant Friend need have no anxieties about the interim period when the ship makes no way, so to speak. There are interim policies. Long-term plans are being made which will continue after the present bodies have gone out of existence. Nevertheless, I agree with him that it is desirable to get the new machinery working. That was one of the pressing reasons why my right hon. Friend was so anxious to proceed with local government elections.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) probably does not know that I served on the original Youth Service Development Council—the Albemarle Committee—in 1960. I have followed these matters with great interest since then. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not assume that all wisdom about Youth Service matters is concentrated in Rochdale, or even in Lancashire. If he cares to come across the water, where we shall be happy to see him, he will find a great deal of enthusiasm, knowledge and interest in new developments relating to youth, not restricted in any way from the community sense. Time does not permit me to give specific examples in the Northern Ireland context, otherwise I could give some interesting ones.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that responsibility for the Youth Service is that of the eduaction authorities at present. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to appreciate the fundamental nature of the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland, at least in relation to education with the five area boards. Under the new area boards it will be possible to pursue the concept the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Far from this being an order for the 1950's, I—as one who has followed these matters closely—can assure the hon.

Gentleman that it is very much one for the 1970's as well.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, the order refers to two Houses of Parliament. Apart from anything else, it is in effect an old Stormont Act, boiled up a long time ago. In those days, no one ever thought of an Assembly. One cannot write into an order provision for reports to an Assembly which has not even been elected, let alone set up. If things progress as I am sure that we all hope that they will, and if in time an Executive grows out of that Assembly, it is my belief that education will be one of the subjects transferred. That comes within the terms of the White Paper. This is the kind of subject on which a report is then made to the Assembly. My hon. Friend cannot ask that we put into an order in April provision for reports to a body which has not even been elected. That is the purely technical reason.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. He is talking in the order about councils which have not be elected, and he is proposing to give them certain powers. Why cannot the order refer to whichever authority is governing Northern Ireland at that time?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The fundamental difference is that these are district councils to be elected under enactments which have been passed and they will have certain powers. The other is an Assembly which one hopes will be elected, but one has no knowledge of what the future holds for it. I hope that there will be ordered progress, but one cannot, in an order like this, write in reports of that nature.
My hon. Friend asked about the Shankill Sports and Leisure Centre. I have had consultations with the Shankill Community Association, and I was impressed by many of those associated with it. This is one of the slower operations. The sum involved is £600,000, so we are not talking about small cash. There are site-aquiring problems, and so on. I am in careful consultation with those concerned and I should like to be able to say that I could make faster progress but my native caution makes me say that I shall make progress at the best


speed that I can. There are real difficulties here, and perhaps I can discuss them more fully with my hon. Friend at an appropriate time.
I do not know the details of the centre in North Antrim to which my hon. Friend referred. I believe that there is a centre near Larne which Belfast is acquiring as an outdoor pursuit centre. It may be that that is what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I do not pretend to have full knowledge of all the details.
In the little time left to me to reply I can give only a short answer to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). If the hon. Gentleman does his arithmetic and does not limit himself to a capital programme extending over a period of years for the leisure centres, and if he then looks at the recurrent expenditure which is under a different head, he will find that this is a substantial expenditure.
I do not have full knowledge of the centre at Coalisland to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not pretend to have that knowledge. There is no reason why a voluntary youth organisation at Coalisland—or anywhere else— should not apply to the Ministry of Education under the Youth and Welfare Training Act. In other words, there is no need for the hon. Gentleman to wait until 1st October, and I hope that that will be of some assistance to him.
I am unrepentant in my attitude to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). It seems right, in the light of the situation in Northern Ireland, to put greater emphasis on some of the difficult areas, particularly where these substantial centres are concerned. If we had paid more attention to this in the past, we should not be sitting here tonight attending to this business.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend addressed the House for some time and he must allow me some time in which to reply. The answer is that this is a local education authority scheme. I am referring to the one centred on Glastry Secondary School. The local education authority has not put this high on its priority list as a youth centre. That is a

factor with which hon. Members are familiar in England and Wales.
There is a proposal for a swimming pool. I have looked at the papers with the greatest care. There is not time tonight to discuss every detail of every scheme, but it is my view that the swimming pool proposal would be far better as a local authority provision than as a school provision. I say that because I am keen to ensure that this substantial investment should be as widely shared as possible and be made available to a large number of people.

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend has castigated me in his pleasant way, saying that we ought to give priority to the areas where there is trouble. He said that if attention had been paid to these matters in the past we would not now have trouble. Is not he adopting the same blind attitude? Unless provision is made in the other areas to which I have referred they will be the trouble spots of the future.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am unrepentant. If we examine expenditure on the Youth Service in the past and its progress in Northern Ireland we find that it does not measure up to what has been done in England and Wales. There are some lessons to be learned. I hope that before direct rule is handed over we can say that we shall be able to hand back a good operation. Enthusiasts in this matter are appreciative of the general atmosphere in which they are now working.
The last question came from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). He will forgive me, but I cannot help him about derating. That is a matter for the Ministry of Finance, and does not come within the terms of the order. I cannot assist him on that.
I must examine more carefully the wide question of provision for the mentally handicapped, which my hon. Friend mentioned. He knows that this is one of my special concerns, but only in an indirect way would it come within the terms of the order.
Like other hon. Members, I have to work under the constraint of time. I have attempted to answer—perhaps not to the satisfaction of every hon. Member—


all the detailed questions that have been raised. I have heard nothing that makes me feel that this is not an order to which the House should give its assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (SUPERANNUATION)

1.13 a.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.
This is a very human order. It stems from the extensive reorganisation in progress in local government in Northern Ireland. The aims of the reorganisation were stressed on 5th April by my right hon. Friend when he announced his decision about the date of local government elections. I shall not go into that, particularly at this late hour, but it is obvious that any major reorganisation of this kind has considerable effects upon those who serve the various local councils as full-time officers and particularly those who are older and the greater part of whose service is now behind them.
We are familiar with this situation in Great Britain. Specific provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 enable certain officers—who, in practice, I understand will be chief officers and deputy chief officers—to retire prematurely if over the age of 50.
In essence, this order applies to Northern Ireland the same provisions as now apply in Great Britain, and for the same good reasons, namely, that we would wish to be as considerate as possible to this group of local government officers who, through no fault of their own, are vitally affected by the reorganisation of the structures in which they have served for so many years.
We are all familiar with the situation in which local government officers holding senior positions understandably attach considerable importance to the status and title of their office. Such men are not always concerned solely with questions of salary. Now, as part of the reorganisation process, a particular job may disappear or alter in title or in status as well as in salary. In those circumstances the officer may prefer, entirely of his own accord, to retire and take his pension rather than be declared redundant, or be forced to accept a post of lesser status and salary.
In former times we sought to get round this difficulty in Great Britain by the device of creating associate chief officer posts. The House will recall that this was done in the reorganisation which led to the creation of the Greater London Council, but I think it is generally agreed that the brain child of the Royal Commission on Local Government—for it was that body which thought up this novel idea—is a much better one. It enables payments to be made to certain officers who opt for early retirement on pension terms, and the order is sufficiently widely drawn to apply to not only local


government officers who are affected by the forthcoming changes but those who have already transferred to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, so long as they exercise their option before they are served with a statement of their new terms and conditions by their new employer.
The order contains provisions for some measure of control over this voluntary retirement, in that existing local authorities may object to a notice of election within one month of its being served. The House will notice that this merely delays until what I think, in practice, will be 1st October, the ability of the officer to retire prematurely on pension terms. I say this because the existing local authorities can delay retirement; they cannot remove from an officer his rights under this order.
The essence of the scheme in the order is that an officer can elect to retire early without being penalised by the loss of compensation which would otherwise go to him in such circumstances. Instead of receiving compensation as such he would be treated for pension purposes as if he had continued to serve until his normal retiring age.
Many of the details of the scheme remain to be completed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State under the order, but it may be helpful if I indicate now that I do not expect this scheme to extend beyond the ranks of chief officer and deputy chief officer. Not only are these officers, by definition, older, but a widespread application of the provisions right down the line could lead to a loss of staff which, in turn, could be very damaging to the administration of local government. I can also add that I expect the detailed conditions for premature retirement, as spelt out in regulations, in the major part to be the same as those proposed in Great Britain.
It is a truism to say, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that we depend greatly upon those who serve in local government for the efficacy of administration over a wide field and to none are we more indebted than those who serve at senior levels and will probably have devoted the whole of their working lives to the public service. Happily, many of them will continue to

serve out their full time in the revised structures, but even if only a few do not want to do so and are of the group described in this order, I have no doubt that it would be the wish of the House that they should be treated with consideration and generosity. It is for these reasons that I commend the order to the House.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is clearly a compassionate provision, of which we can only approve. I shall delay the House for no more than a few moments—long enough to ask two questions.
We frequently pay warm tributes to the Northern Ireland police, who have an unenviable task, and I am concerned that our tributes should take some tangible form. As I see the situation, the police are not included in the order. Will the Minister confirm that that is because no question of their early retirement is likely to arise from the reorganisation?
My second question is really a request for an undertaking. We have before the House another curious constitutional animal, arising from the Northern Ireland situation. It is a well-known maxim of administrative law that a delegate cannot himself delegate. Yet we have before us a proposal that the Minister shall make regulations under this order which itself is subordinate legislation made under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. The Secretary of State is availing himself of powers of subordinate legislation to give himself power to make further subordinate legislation. I wonder where that process could end. One sees the reasons for it in this situation, but can we be given an undertaking that the Government will keep the matter under tight rein? It is a curious animal, which could gallop away with us all if we do not watch it carefully.
I promised not to delay the House for more than a few moments, and I do not propose to do so.

1.23 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The order deals with a matter of the utmost importance. It is a human matter, which affects many people in Northern Ireland. Though the hour is early, and though many of us have businesses to attend to early in the morning in Northern Ireland


—my first meeting is at 9.30 in the morning—I feel it my duty, as a Northern Ireland representative, at least to pass some comments on the order and elicit some information from the Minister of State.
I emphasise that no threats or bad language used against hon. Members from Ulster will deter them from attending to the business before the House. On coming into the Chamber I heard some ill-conceived comments of a most unparliamentary nature hurled at Northern Ireland Members because we were trying to do our duty within parliamentary time and procedure. I completely exonerate both Front Benches, but I must protest at what happened. I am entitled to come here as a Member from Northern Ireland to speak on these orders if I desire to do so, within the limits of procedure.

Mr. Peter Archer: I wish to place on record that those comments did not come from Opposition Members.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am happy to confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. When principles are at stake and one is prepared to rise to the challenge, one finds that certain hon. Members feel that that is not the right thing to do. I shall not pursue the point, for I shall find myself out of order, and I do not want to delay matters.
Before the Stormont Parliament was prorogued, the Macrory Report was in existence and there was an attempt to implement its recommendations. That report broke down the whole structure of local government. Rural district councils, urban councils, borough councils and county borough and county councils were all to be destroyed—indeed they are now in process of being dismantled. People who have served the community faithfully will now find themselves unable to obtain positions in the reorganised local authorities. Representations about these employees have been made to me and, I believe, to other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I am happy that the order contains provision for early retirement from local government by people who have served their day and generation so well.
I take it that there are employees in all the departments who will come within

the scope of the order. Will the Minister of State tell us how many will have to retire early from the Housing Trust? There were two building authorities— local government and the trust. Now, responsibility for all public building will rest with the Housing Trust and many employees will have to retire early, thus coming within the scope of the order. How many local government employees will now find that the new district councils cannot take them over? When various boards, such as the hospital boards, the libraries, education boards, and so on, take over the duties of the councils, how many will have to be retired early?
I also ask about the electricity boards concerned in amalgamation, and about the fire services. Hon. Members may not know that the fire authority for Northern Ireland did not include Belfast, which had a separate fire authority under the county borough council. There has been an amalgamation and some people will not be employed by the new bodies. I should like to have statistics on these matters showing how many will benefit by the new measure.
The question of delegated delegation mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tiptree (Mr. Peter Archer) is very important. Now that we have this delegated legislation one remove from the first delegation, we should have an explanation and direction from the Government. Are they to continue this process? One wonders how far it will go and what will be the end. These are very important points and I hope that the Minister of State can help us on them. Two of my constituents who served the local authority for many years now have to retire early. I am glad that compensation for loss of office will be available to them. I welcome the humanity of this measure and the fact that the Minister presented it even so early in the morning. I join the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) in thanking the Minister for his patience and courtesy in answering questions.
When one looks at the Opposition benches one finds it quite evident that certain hon. Members came here tonight only to discuss the contentious second order, whereas, of course, the first and


the third deal with ordinary people of Northern Ireland.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I wish to give a brief welcome to this measure. I concur in the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in thanking the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he has introduced this important measure.
I repeat the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer): why was the police service not covered along with the others? Is it because there will not be any need for an early retirement provision? We in Northern Ireland owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the members of the RUC, and I for one want to be satisfied that they are not detrimentally affected by being omitted from this provision.
Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a position to enlarge on the superannuation provisions? If a person elects to retire early, will he receive a fixed pension for the rest of his life? Is there any provision for increasing the pension to take account of the effect of inflation? I see no mention of it in the order and, while I realise that it is not possible under our procedure to amend the order, I feel that there should be some provision to allow any pension to be increased to meet rises in the cost of living, so that retired persons do not suffer because their pensions become totally inadequate over the course of years.
If that is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. But I thought it was a serious matter, because other pensioners in my constituency have complained about the inadequacy of their pensions, due to the effect of inflation. Therefore, in so far as it is in order, I should like my hon. Friend to deal with it. Subject to that qualification, I welcome the order.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In a few brief remarks I want to dispel the impression that we are dealing with matters which are of little account, and that in doing so the Ulster Members are somehow exploiting the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. That is hardly within the terms of the order.

Mr. Molyneaux: As my party's spokesman for local government, and as one who still serves in local government, I must make the point that there are a vast number of matters which in other circumstances I should wish to mention in the context of the order. However, I content myself with raising only two.
The order refers to the Housing Executive. I am prompted to ask whether everything possible has been done to find positions for the housing officers of local authorities to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred. How does their position, as regards placement in other posts, compare with that of the housing officers and staff of the former Northern Ireland Housing Trust?
Then there is the complicated business of the amalgamation of boards. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can see his way to making some reply on that aspect.
Paragraph 1 deals with early retirements—the centrepiece of the order. Is there any significant variation in the number of redundancies in geographical areas of the Province? For example, how does the western half of Northern Ireland compare with the eastern half? Is the number of early redundancies above the general average in certain fields of local government? For example, how do former officers of education departments compare with those of welfare departments? On another level, how do former officers of legal departments compare with those of motor taxation departments?
On other occasions I have mentioned particularly the interests of the legal officers of county councils. I am still not satisfied with the assurances that I have been given. I still do not feel that we are using to the full, or intend to use to the full, these experienced and integrated staffs, who have done much good work in the past.
Finally, what steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of those public-spirited local government officers who have stayed at their posts for the additional six months which resulted from


the postponing of the local government elections? The Government and all of us owe those people a great debt. I trust that their careers will not suffer in any way.

1.36 a.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I assure the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that the police are not disadvanteged by the order. It arises out of the reorganisation of local government. That does not directly concern the police as a force, but that is why early retirement is not contemplated. I take the hon. and learned Member's point about subordinate legislation, having myself been watchful of these things in times gone by. He will understand that we are operating under an emergency procedure. It is not possible for every order to be minutely set out in this legislation, but I take the point: it has to be watched.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) any figures in the class he asked about because, the exact class of person has to be set out in orders made under this measure, but I hope that I have indicated to him broadly the class which will be included. I am given to understand— obviously, I have to operate on the basis of the advice I am given—that the number concerned will be comparatively small throughout Northern Ireland. I am glad that that should be so, because it shows that by far the greater number of these senior men have been happily fitted into the new patterns. That is pleasing to all of us.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East will like to know that cost of living increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 will apply to payments where the officer attains or has attained the age of 55. This age threshold was reduced from 60 last year, representing a great improvement. Of course, taking the whole of the provision, the payments made to such an officer would include both capital and income payments.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) details of the placement of the officers he mentioned. If it will assist

him to have a word with me afterwards, I will ask the appropriate department to write to him. I am concerned only with their superannuation upon early retirement. But there has been a recent meeting with the county solicitors and others of that status, which I am told they regarded as satisfactory. This happened so recently that my hon. Friend may not have had an opportunity to study it. Naturally, we want to be appropriately careful and considerate to very senior officers of that nature.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Orders of the Day — HURN AIRPORT

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order? Do the Government state—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaUalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he is taking time from the Adjournment debate. The matter will be dealt with tomorrow.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged.

1.41 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: At this early hour I shall be as brief as possible, in order that the Officers of the House may not suffer too long, as I believe that the House did not rise last night until half-past 2 o'clock and it is now nearly a quarter to 2 o'clock.
It is proposed to extend the runways at Hum Airport and to develop the airport's ancillary services. These proposals have aroused a great deal of comment in the locality. At the outset, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to set up a


public inquiry into the matter, to give all interested persons and bodies an opportunity to propound their individual views. To the people of the Bournemouth area the subject of Hum Airport is of profound importance and it is essential that their views should be known and taken into account.
In our area we have felt acutely the redundancies created by the British Aircraft Corporation. Our fear is that if the Concorde and the F 1-11 do not find success even more families will be plunged into the despair of unemployment. In the Defence Estimates White Paper, recently published, the Government propose to close the Signals Research and Development Establishment, which means a further blow to Christ-church, for over 900 men will lose their jobs. It is intolerable that our area should be subjected to such massive unemployment.
I want to say something about the future development of the area, with special regard to the proposals for Hum Airport. I have no doubt that an extension of the runways would ultimately benefit the economic life of the surrounding district, but it would also mean a deterioration in the environmental qualities of the area. I should like to see an increase in the number of jobs without any appreciable interference with the beauty and attraction of the area. The first step towards that would be to sanction the development of an industrial estate at Hum. At present the Hampshire County Council says that only aircraft work and component manufacture is to be carried out at Hum. This re-struction must be abolished. The Government should encourage the setting up of such an estate, perhaps by issuing industrial development certificates.
Industrial units could easily be set up at Hum without harming the environment, as factories could easily be camouflaged and our roads are excellent. We have a reservoir of highly-skilled, conscientious workers, and they would make a success of such an enterprise.
With such an industrial estate, the case for extending the airport runways would, in the short term, recede. The extension would require greater ancillary services, providing jobs throughout the area. An

industrial estate would provide jobs, too, and without the aggravation of increased air traffic.
However, it is clear that a bigger airport could be of lasting benefit to the area, particularly from the tourism angle. In my view, Hum will have to be extended eventually to keep pace with aeronautics developments. The Ministry has recommended that the airport should remain operative for at least 20 years. It is only good sense that the airport should keep pace with the times and be an asset rather than a liability to its operators. Though I believe that we should preserve our precious environmental qualities, we cannot hide our heads in the sand and deny a hopeful future to the coming generation.
The question, then, is one of balance. Emotions have been roused in proponents and opponents of the extension. No one in his senses wants to increase the amount and frequency of aircraft noise, but unless Hum is allowed to progress it will die and be utterly worthless. Our area cannot afford to neglect such an asset or ignore its prospects.
Many people have moved to the Bournemouth area to enjoy a well-earned retirement. They are entitled to have the peace and quiet that they expected. If the airport is developed, it must be on lines acceptable to the people who will be affected by such development. I believe that the local population have no object-tion to an increase in daytime air traffic, but night flights will not be tolerated. We could take a leaf out of the European airports' books. Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels airports are closed from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. Hum, with an extended runway, should have similar restrictions. Given safeguards as to noise and pollution, I think that the airport should be allowed to extend its runways. Such an extension would be a much-needed shot in the arm for the local economy, taken together with the industrial developments of which I have spoken.
Our area has tremendous expertise and renown in the running of ancillary services, such as hotels and restaurants. We can give of our best to provide the best. The area could become a centre for conferences. A larger airport could also bring in more tourists from the Continent, which would be of great benefit to our


area and the hinterland. If Hum could handle larger aeroplanes, and a goodly number of them, it would be one of our westernmost capacity airports and would be convenient for Wales, France, Spain and the United States of America.
The necessary development will cost a lot of money. I believe that the Government should provide most of it. Our area gets little enough in the way of aid and it is not too much to ask for this assistance.
I am concerned, too, about who should run the airport. It is my considered opinion that it should be run by Bournemouth. Bournemouth's population will be most affected, beneficially and detrimentally, and the borough has already paid half of the airport's cost. So far there have been large losses, and it is right that Bournemouth should have some profit from it in the future.
I think the Government were wrong not to include Hurn in the restructured Bournemouth, and that this situation should be reversed.
In the argument about the extension, one principle must be paramount. People matter most. People's homes, lives and jobs matter more than anything. I believe that it is not beyond our talents to find an acceptable solution to the question of Hurn Airport extension.

1.49 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I shall try to match the commendable brevity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. Cordle) has made his point, though I recognise that having waited till this late hour my hon. Friend is entitled to as full an answer as I can give him to the points he has raised. I know that he has been pursuing them since last autumn in correspondence and in meetings at my Department.
My hon. Friend will not mind my adding that his neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), has also been taking a close and active interest in the problems of his area.
I fully appreciate the degree of local interest in the airport and its importance to the economy of the area, but in the first instance it is for the consortium of

Bournemouth and Dorset, which operates the airport, to decide how it wishes it to develop. As my hon. Friend knows, last September the airport management committee published for public consultation a report on airport development which set out alternative schemes for a runway extension as a first stage in its development. Before the constituent authorities considered these schemes observations were invited from interested organisations and individuals, and subsequently a series of public meetings was held at which those affected could make their views known.
In the meantime, the management committee has kept in close touch with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is now responsible for advising on the development of aerodromes to match the development of air services. The CAA has been providing technical aviation advice on the alternative schemes being considered as well as more general advice in the context of its formulation of a national strategy for airport development.
I understand that the management committee has not yet decided the final form which a runway extension scheme should take but that it expects shortly to make an application for planning permission. This will be for the local planning authority—the Hampshire County Council— to consider. If the matter is referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he may call it in, and in that case, in view of the strength of local feeling, I have no doubt that a public inquiry would be held, at which all those affected would have ample opportunity to make their views known before any final decision was taken. The ultimate decision, following such an inquiry, would lie with my right hon. and learned Friend.
It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of such an inquiry and I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friend will understand that in these circumstances I am not in a position to comment on the merits of the alternative proposals which have been put forward, but I should like to deal with the unemployment position.
It is true that the British Aircraft Corporation is the largest employer in the area, and this is obviously important in the provision of job opportunities, but


the area has a wide employment base. There are other manufacturing employers in the area, and between them they account for more than 12,000 jobs. After allowing for some redundancies and natural wastage, there has been a net growth of 400 jobs within these firms over the last 12 months.
The BAC at Hum employs about 2,400 people. This is a drop from a figure of 4,500 at the beginning of 1970. The biggest drop was in 1971, but over the last year the net job loss, after allowing for redundancies and natural wastage, has been about 360. This is clearly a factor to be taken into account, and so is the transfer of the SRDE to which my hon. Friend referred. My understanding is that that involves the reduction of about 700 jobs, and this factor will be borne in mind when future industrial development certificate applications are considered, but before I come to deal with the question of IDCs I think that it might be helpful if I set the general scene for employment trends in the area.
In March 1973 unemployment totalled 3,760, or 3·4 per cent. This was the lowest March percentage since 1968, when it was 3·2 per cent., and in terms of actual numbers unemployed the lowest March figure since 1967. The March 1972 figure was 5,775, or 5·2 per cent. But to put these figures in their proper perspective it is necessary to recall that they include a large number of older men who have moved to the Bournemouth area in semi-retirement and do not in many cases wish to work again and can therefore be described as unemployed in a technical sense only.
I think that the following figures make that clear. In the South-East area as a whole, 20 per cent. of the male unemployed are aged 60 or over. In the Bournemouth area the figure is much higher—35 per cent. To complete the picture, the number of unfilled vacancies notified to the Department of Employment was 2,284 in March, and this figure still represents only a proportion of the total number of actual vacancies. It is nevertheless the highest March figure for the Bournemouth travel-to-work area for the last 15 years or more.
On the question of industrial development certificates, the sanctioning of indus-

trial development is a matter in the first instance for the local planning authority. Government policy on the issue of IDCs has been affirmed on several occasions. The IDC control does not apply to existing industrial premises. In Hampshire and the South-East generally the IDC exemption limit is now 10,000 sq. ft. When we took office the limit was 3,000 sq. ft. In the last year we have adopted a more flexible approach in considering IDCs for modernisation and efficiency schemes which involve some increase in employment. But the essential purpose of the IDC control under the Government's regional policies remains—that is, whenever it is reasonable to do so to try to divert new or substantial expansion of industry to the assisted areas which overall have the greater unemployment problems.
Second to that, we have to have regard to the needs of the new and expanding towns. Every IDC application made to the Department is nevertheless considered on its merits and the employment situation in the area is taken into account. In practice, in the Bournemouth travel-to-work area all the IDCs applied for in 1972 and the first two months of 1973 have been approved. Since the beginning of 1972, 27 applications were approved, up to the end of February 1973. The applicants estimated that the projects involved would, when completed and fully manned, provide 690 jobs, 570 of which would be for males.
Returning to matters associated with Hum Airport, my hon. Friend referred to the problem of controlling noise disturbance if the runway is extended. The management at Hum Airport currently operates a range of measures to deal with the aircraft noise problem, including minimum noise routes and a preferential runway system. No doubt the management would, in the event of any development of the airport, take adequate steps to adopt whatever measures seemed best to mitigate disturbance in the light of the changed circumstances. Many airports, including some in the United Kingdom, impose restrictions on movements of aircraft at night. It would be for the management of Hum to consider, after any extension of facilities, what regime to apply to night movements.
I should, of course, make it clear that I shall keep closely in touch with


developments at Hurn, and I would not hesitate to take appropriate action if I thought that the management was not taking all reasonable steps to control noise. Nevertheless, it is right to set it on record that Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels do not close at night, although there are restrictions on the movement of aircraft of varying severity, differing according to the types concerned. So, indeed, there are restrictions at major airports in our own country. I would utter a word of warning to my hon. Friend that the concept of night curfews is not consistent with the maximisation of airport development. It is much better to look forward to the time when the night hours can be confined to movements by quiet noise-certificated aircraft.
On the specific point my hon. Friend mentioned about a recommendation by my Department that the airport should continue in operation for 20 years, I assume that he is referring to the clauses in the conveyance and agreement governing the transfer of the airport to the local authorities which provide that my Department can repurchase the airport if it ceases to be licensed for public use within 21 years. This in no way binds my Department to support the extension of the airport, and we would not come to a decision on the issue of consent to borrow for such a scheme until planning permission had been obtained.
On the matter of future ownership of the airport following reorganisation of local government, the Department of the Environment, with which my Department is in close contact, is at present consulting local authorities on the vesting of aerodrome property. Subject to any new arrangements which the local authorities concerned may wish to make it is intended that aerodrome property, like that of other functions which will be exercised concurrently by both county and district authorities, will be vested in the successor authorities to the present owners. The new district of Bourne-

mouth can therefore be expected, if it wishes, to continue to retain an interest in the ownership and operation of the airport, although the detailed arrangements will of course be subject to the negotiation of a revised agreement with the new County of Dorset.
The inclusion of the site of the airport within the new district of Christchurch would not necessarily affect the decision on the ownership of the airport, as local authority powers extend to running airports outside their own areas.
Looking to the future, the prospects for the BAC Hum factory are not necessarily all gloom. The management does not expect any redundancies during 1973. The Government are continuing to give every support and encouragement to the Concorde sales programme. The same is true for the BAC 1-11, for which a number of hopeful sales possibilities exist.
Regarding my hon. Friend's final point about the importance of people in matters of this kind, I hesitate to disagree with him, but all too often, although homes, lives and jobs may matter more than anything, one man's interests conflict with another's. If I may adapt a phrase which used to be a favourite of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase, in matters of this kind, all too often one man's livelihood is another man's environmental nuisance. One man's job is another man's eyesore.
The Government's task, after the fullest inquiry and consultation, is to try to balance considerations of this kind in the best possible way. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the record shows that the present Government are not wanting in understanding of the kind of issues that he has raised when the time for decision comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Two o'clock.